Message ID | alpine.LRH.2.00.0904020931520.11458@vixen.sonytel.be |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > | arch/powerpc/platforms/built-in.o:(.toc1+0x4e8): undefined reference to `pci_io_base' > > due to arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/io-workarounds.c. I guess this file > shouldn't be built when CONFIG_PCI=n? Right, the I/O workarounds are specific to the spider PCI implementation, so there is no point in having them without PCI support. > As I don't have the hardware to test anyway, I'll give up. BenK, can you try Geert's patch on QPACE? Arnd <><
* Arnd Bergmann | 2009-04-02 15:15:11 [+0200]: >BenK, can you try Geert's patch on QPACE? Successfully tested on QPACE. Acked-by: Benjamin Krill <ben@codiert.org>
Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > | arch/powerpc/platforms/built-in.o:(.toc1+0x4e8): undefined reference to `pci_io_base' > > > > due to arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/io-workarounds.c. I guess this file > > shouldn't be built when CONFIG_PCI=n? > > Right, the I/O workarounds are specific to the spider PCI implementation, > so there is no point in having them without PCI support. > > > As I don't have the hardware to test anyway, I'll give up. > > BenK, can you try Geert's patch on QPACE? So is that patch good or not? If it's good, could someone please repost it with a proper patch description etc.? Thanks, Paul.
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Arnd Bergmann writes: > > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > | arch/powerpc/platforms/built-in.o:(.toc1+0x4e8): undefined reference to `pci_io_base' > > > > > > due to arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/io-workarounds.c. I guess this file > > > shouldn't be built when CONFIG_PCI=n? > > > > Right, the I/O workarounds are specific to the spider PCI implementation, > > so there is no point in having them without PCI support. > > > > > As I don't have the hardware to test anyway, I'll give up. > > > > BenK, can you try Geert's patch on QPACE? > > So is that patch good or not? If it's good, could someone please > repost it with a proper patch description etc.? It's not good, as it still causes the link error above. With kind regards, Geert Uytterhoeven Software Architect Sony Techsoft Centre Europe The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium Phone: +32 (0)2 700 8453 Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622 E-mail: Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/ A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V. VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig index 40e24c3..fa604b1 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Kconfig @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ config PPC_CELL_COMMON config PPC_CELL_NATIVE bool select PPC_CELL_COMMON - select PPC_OF_PLATFORM_PCI + select PPC_OF_PLATFORM_PCI if PCI select MPIC select IBM_NEW_EMAC_EMAC4 select IBM_NEW_EMAC_RGMII diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/setup.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/setup.c index 5930536..628b21f 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/setup.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/setup.c @@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ static void cell_progress(char *s, unsigned short hex) printk("*** %04x : %s\n", hex, s ? s : ""); } +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI static void cell_fixup_pcie_rootcomplex(struct pci_dev *dev) { struct pci_controller *hose; @@ -141,6 +142,7 @@ static int __devinit cell_setup_phb(struct pci_controller *phb) return 0; } +#endif /* CONFIG_PCI */ static int __init cell_publish_devices(void) { @@ -287,5 +289,7 @@ define_machine(cell) { .calibrate_decr = generic_calibrate_decr, .progress = cell_progress, .init_IRQ = cell_init_irq, +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI .pci_setup_phb = cell_setup_phb, +#endif };