[PATCH 0/6] Description for PCI patches using platform driver

[Jia Hongtao-B38951]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:43 PM
> To: Jia Hongtao-B38951
> Cc: Bhushan Bharat-R65777; linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org;
> galak at kernel.crashing.org; Li Yang-R58472; benh at kernel.crashing.org; Wood
> Scott-B07421
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Description for PCI patches using platform
> driver
> 
> On 06/10/2012 09:33 PM, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bhushan Bharat-R65777
> >> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 6:47 PM
> >> To: Jia Hongtao-B38951; linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org;
> >> galak at kernel.crashing.org
> >> Cc: Li Yang-R58472; benh at kernel.crashing.org; Wood Scott-B07421
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/6] Description for PCI patches using platform
> >> driver
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jia Hongtao-B38951
> >>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:12 PM
> >>> To: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org; galak at kernel.crashing.org
> >>> Cc: Li Yang-R58472; benh at kernel.crashing.org; Wood Scott-B07421;
> >> Bhushan Bharat-
> >>> R65777; Jia Hongtao-B38951
> >>> Subject: [PATCH 0/6] Description for PCI patches using platform
> driver
> >>>
> >>> This series of patches are to unify pci initialization code and add
> PM
> >> support
> >>> for all 85xx/86xx powerpc boards. But two side effects are introduced
> >> by this
> >>> mechanism which listed below:
> >>>
> >>> 1. of_platform_bus_probe() will be called twice but in some cases
> >> duplication
> >>>    warning occured. We fix this in [PATCH 5/6].
> >>>
> >>> 2. Edac driver failed to register pci nodes as platform devices. We
> fix
> >> this
> >>>    in [PATCH 6/6].
> >>
> >> With these patches will not the SWIOTLB will not be initialized even
> if
> >> PCI/PCIe demanded?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> -Bharat
> >>
> >
> > These patches still have the swiotlb init problem if
> "ppc_swiotlb_enable" is
> > only demanded by PCI/PCIe. One of the purposes of sending out these
> patches
> > is to let us start a discussion for this problem in upstream.
> 
> When sending out a patchset like that, label it as [RFC PATCH] (request
> for comments), and mention all known problems to be resolved.
> 
> -Scott

I got it.
Thanks for your remind.
-Jia Hongtao.