[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0CE8B6BE3C4AD74AB97D9D29BD24E552011D5F94@CORPEXCH1.na.ads.idt.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:27:34 -0700
From: "Bounine, Alexandre" <Alexandre.Bounine@....com>
To: "Micha Nelissen" <micha@...i.hopto.org>
Cc: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
"Bounine, Alexandre" <Alexandre.Bounine@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/9] RapidIO, powerpc/85xx: modify RIO port-write interrupt handler
Micha Nelissen wrote:
>
> Alexandre Bounine wrote:
> > - Rearranged RIO port-write interrupt handling to perform message
buffering
> > as soon as possible.
>
> I don't understand this comment: you still schedule work to read the
> port-write queue; so how is this message buffering performed as soon
as
> possible?
Compared to the original code, I rearranged order of checking interrupt
status bits to check the queue status first. The 85xx PW controller is
capable to receive and keep only one PW message. Therefore, I copy it
into the driver's FIFO and re-enable HW Rx queue (it is called queue but
can accept only one entry) ASAP. I have a test setup that is capable
generate multiple PW messages and see many messages discarded by PW
controller
because of this single-entry HW queue.
>
> > - Modified to disable port-write controller when clearing
Transaction Error (TE)
> > bit.
> > /* Schedule deferred processing if PW was received */
> > - if (ipwsr & RIO_IPWSR_QFI) {
> > + if ((ipwmr & RIO_IPWMR_QFIE) && (ipwsr & RIO_IPWSR_QFI)) {
>
> Why check the QFIE bit also?
Oops! Leftover from some testing. Will clean it up.
>
> > +pw_done:
> > + if (epwisr & 0x80000000) {
>
> Magic value.
Agree. Will correct.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists