[PATCH 0/5] Add the support for MPC8641 silicon rev 2.0 and MPC8641HPCN board 2.0

[Kumar Gala]

On May 21, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Zhang Wei-r63237 wrote:

> Hi, Kumar,
>
> Please see my inline comments:
>>>
>>>   [PATCH 1/5] Remove the errata fix codes for MPC8641 silicon ver
>>> 1.0 which is end of life.
>
> This patch is not included in Wade's patch.
>
> MPC8641 silicon 1.0 is end of life and not full following
> PCI/PCI-Express specifications.
> Rev 2.0 silicon fixes these PCI/PCI-Express errata and follows the
> PCI/PCI-Ex specifications.
> So, using generic PCI codes is okay.

Was rev1.0 silicon ever used by customers w/ production systems?

>>>   [PATCH 2/5] Add uli1575 pci-bridge sector to MPC8641HPCN dts file.
>
> This's a simple and clear solution to Wade's pci fix patch. Some  
> changes
> of Wade's pci fix patch are redundant.
>
>>>   [PATCH 3/5] Float the pci bus number on MPC8641HPCN board.
>
> This patch is not included in Wade's patch.
>
> Every PCI hose bus range number is started from 0 before. This patch
> make the hose bus range number is started from previous hose last bus
> number added one.
> And PCI-Ex tranining status check is added to avoid the system halt.
>
>>>   [PATCH 4/5] Set RC of mpc8641 to transparent bridge for transfer
>>> legacy I/O access.
>
> This patch is different than Wade's pci fix patch.
> Wade's pci patch changing MPC8641 PCI_CLASS property is not a good
> solution. Only set it to transport bridge is okay.
> And this quirk functions should applied to both MPC8641 and MPC8641D,
> not only dual core version.
>
>>>   [PATCH 5/5] Set IDE in ULI1575 to not native mode.
>
> This patch is not included in Wade's patch.
> It makes IDE in ULI1575 works.
>
>>
>> How do these patches differ/interace from what Wade posted a
>> few days
>> ago?
>
> Wade's MTD patch (patch 1), Legacy patch (patch 2), superIO patch  
> (patch
> 3), RTC patch (patch 4) is not overlap with my patches.
> But Wade's PCI patch (patch 5) most of codes is for supporting a
> discontinued and end of life silicon and I do not agree with the  
> changes
> about PCI_CLASS of MPC8641. The dts fixing is too complex. I  
> suggest to
> reject Wade's PCI patch.

Is Wade going to rebase his patches on top of your's?

- k