[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190408090744.GK3622@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 12:07:44 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Christian Kellner <ckellner@...hat.com>,
Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/36] thunderbolt: Extend tunnel creation to more
than 2 adjacent switches
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:53:37AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> Hm, what other cases are there, i.e. what is the meaning of a tb_regs_hop's
> "next_hop" field if "out_port" doesn't have a remote? (And why does it
> need to be tracked on the out_port? In case a remote is added later?)
We also need to program HopIDs for adapter ports (PCIe, DP, NHI) in
order to enable a path. The "next_hop" from NULL port to an adapter port
tells the HopID a packet gets when it is routed to the adapter port and
the adapter port registers then are used to specify which HopID means
what (for PCIe there is only 8 but for DP there is 8 and 9, for NHI it
can be anything the service driver has negotiated).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists