[PATCH v7 1/3] of/pci: Unify pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges from Microblaze and PowerPC

[Grant Likely]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Jason Cooper <jason at lakedaemon.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 05:00:15PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:30:06 +0100, Andrew Murray <andrew.murray at arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:18:26AM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
>> > > The pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges function, used to parse the "ranges"
>> > > property of a PCI host device, is found in both Microblaze and PowerPC
>> > > architectures. These implementations are nearly identical. This patch
>> > > moves this common code to a common place.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <Andrew.Murray at arm.com>
>> > > Signed-off-by: Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau at arm.com>
>> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>> > > Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com>
>> > > Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>
>> > > Acked-by: Michal Simek <monstr at monstr.eu>
>> > > ---
>> > >  arch/microblaze/include/asm/pci-bridge.h |    5 +-
>> > >  arch/microblaze/pci/pci-common.c         |  192 ----------------------------
>> > >  arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h    |    5 +-
>> > >  arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c         |  192 ----------------------------
>> >
>> > Is there anyone on linuxppc-dev/linux-mips that can help test this patchset?
>> >
>> > I've tested that it builds on powerpc with a variety of configs (some which
>> > include fsl_pci.c implementation). Though I don't have hardware to verify that
>> > it works.
>> >
>> > I haven't tested this builds or runs on MIPS.
>> >
>> > You shouldn't see any difference in behaviour or new warnings and PCI devices
>> > should continue to operate as before.
>>
>> I've got through a line-by-line comparison between powerpc, microblaze,
>> and then new code. The differences are purely cosmetic, so I have
>> absolutely no concerns about this patch. I've applied it to my tree.
>
> oops.  Due to the number of dependencies the mvebu-pcie series has (this
> being one of them, we (arm-soc/mvebu) asked if we could take this
> through our tree.  Rob Herring agreed to this several days ago.  Is this
> a problem for you?
>
> It would truly (dogs and cats living together) upset the apple cart for
> us at this stage to pipe these through a different tree...

Not a problem at all. I'll drop it.

g.