[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CC1D7DE.7060405@neli.hopto.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:28:46 +0200
From: Micha Nelissen <micha@...i.hopto.org>
To: "Bounine, Alexandre" <Alexandre.Bounine@....com>
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
Thomas Moll <thomas.moll@...go.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/2] RapidIO: Changes to handling of RIO switches
Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
> Micha Nelissen <micha@...i.hopto.org> wrote:
>> Alexandre Bounine wrote:
>> How can you say this? The two variables have different meanings, this
>> logically implies you can't merge them. So how do you say 'this does
> not
>> prevent us from ...' without providing a reason?
>
> Looks like I formulated it bad - better would be: they have different
> interpretation by hardware but logically in RapidIO they have single
> role - destid/hopcount are a device coordinates in the RIO network used
> to access that device.
They are logically different as well (for a non-host).
rswitch->destid with hopcount is the way to reach that switch.
rswitch->rdev->destid should be the id associated with a given switch,
so that every (processor) device can agree what id some switch has. For
a non-host, the path to reach a switch may use a different id than the
switch itself has; it's just the id by which it was discovered.
However, it's possible to fix that by fixing the id+hopcount once the
switch is found using the path with its own id: then you know the right
hopcount.
>> can be defined to point to the switch that a given rio_dev is
> connected
>> to. This is useful for quick lookups. How else can to know to which
>> switch a given device is connected?
>
> rdev->rswitch is not a pointer to the entire switch device object - it
> is a pointer to the switch specific extension associated with given
> rio_dev (if applicable). There is no other role for rdev->rswitch.
I know this, it doesn't answer my question.
> Why would you keep a pointer to device data extension instead of the
> pointer to attached device object itself?
There is no particular reason, but this is a useful way to define the
fields that are there.
My point is, now that you remove the pointer field, that information (to
which switch is a particular device connected) cannot be stored in this
way, so do you have an alternative proposal for that? Maybe add a new field.
> BTW, I have back and forward links added in previous patches and only
> one link that may be added later is a forward link from mport to the
> attached rio_dev (ptr to rio_switch will not work here because it can be
> switchless connection). But this reference has to be added into
> rio_mport.
Possible, but I suggest to put it in the rio_net: fields rdev_host, and
rdev_self. You can see it in the patch I sent you.
Micha
--
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