Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:02:42 +0100 | From | Micha Nelissen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] RapidIO: Add Port-Write handling for EM |
| |
Bounine, Alexandre wrote: > Micha Nelissen wrote: >> Alexandre Bounine wrote: >>> /** >>> + * rio_em_set_ops- Sets Error Managment operations for a particular > vendor switch >>> + * @rdev: RIO device >>> + * >>> + * Searches the RIO EM ops table for known switch types. If the vid >>> + * and did match a switch table entry, then set the em_init() and >>> + * em_handle() ops to the table entry values. >> Shouldn't any RIO device be able to support error management, not just >> switches? > > Only if a device reports this capability by having Error Management > Extended Features block. > Ideally, we have to provide default handler for every such device (I am > planning it for some future updates). It should be the same as for > routing operations - if the standard feature exists, it has to be used > unless something else takes over.
Yes, therefore I thought that: or the EM_OPS are per driver, or they can be integrated in the switch hooks list.
> For now I keep all port-write messages from end-points serviced by their > individual drivers. One of reasons for this: the EM PW message format
Maybe have a generic rio function that can be called by any driver that knows a particular port-write was due to error management causes? This function would read the standard defined EF block registers. Then the driver part can be quite small.
>>> + if (port->ops->pwenable) >>> + port->ops->pwenable(port, enable); >>> +} >>> + >> Maybe this can be done by switch->init function? > > This is not per-switch function. This function enables mport to receive > incoming PW messages. Per-switch PW enable is done in switch->init as > for Tsi57x.
Oops, I meant this comment for the em_init function call.
>>> + rio_mport_write_config_32(mport, destid, > hopcount, >>> + rdev->phys_efptr + >>> + RIO_PORT_N_ACK_STS_CSR(portnum), >>> + RIO_PORT_N_ACK_CLEAR); >> This doesn't work for the 568; but the 568 has no special handling? > > Tsi568 will not send EM PW message. Tsi568 PWs are disabled in its > em_init().
Why?
>>> +DECLARE_RIO_EM_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI578, tsi57x_em_init, > tsi57x_em_handler); >> Why not declare these along with the other ops? > > Because the EM extensions is a separate capability. It is not guaranteed > to be in every switch.
They might initialize them with NULL to indicate they don't support it?
Micha
| |