[PATCH] powerpc/pci: Only do fixed PHB numbering on powernv

Michael Ellerman mpe at ellerman.id.au
Tue Aug 9 14:44:11 AEST 2016

"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On 08/08/2016 09:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>> (i) What is the specific issue? Do you have some logs or at least a
>>> "high-level" description of the problem in Xorg? I took a look in its
>>> code and PCI domain is coded as u16, which is correct/expected. So it
>>> seems a subtle bug we should investigate and hopefully fix.
>> It was reported here:
>>    https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2016-August/147062.html
>> It seems xorg just has a hard coded limit of 256 domains.
> Thanks for the link Michael. I guess Xorg _had_ this limit in the 
> "past", since the function that was logged on error - xf86MapLegacyIO() 
> - was removed by a commit of 2014:
> https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2014-July/043224.html

Aha, nice work.

In fact it seems to be better than that, the array of domains was
removed in 2011 in:


Which is officially ancient history as far as I'm concerned.

>>> (ii) Why is it related to the absence of pseries check?! You said this
>>> was your bad, but as far as I understand, Xorg runs in pSeries too so
>>> the issue should also be there heheh
>> Well yes I guess it would, if anyone had tested Xorg on pseries :)
> We use to test Xorg on pSeries regularly; in fact, I made a quick test 
> today:
> http://imgur.com/a/l1lP8
> I forced the domain to be 0xffff as in the above image, and everything 
> worked fine.


>> I think for now I'm going to apply this, and we'll work out something
>> else later.
> OK, I guess your solution is fine and solves the pasemi issue quickly, 

No given the above info on xorg I'll drop this, and merge just the
endian fix.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list