[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120731163308.GA13610@jonmason-lab>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:33:08 -0700
From: Jon Mason <jon.mason@...el.com>
To: Jianbin Kang <kjbmail@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/2] PCI-Express Non-Transparent Bridge Support
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:35:33AM +0800, Jianbin Kang wrote:
> > I've tried to make it all generic enough that non-Intel NTBs should plug in with
> > minimal changes to ntb_hw.c. If their design is too divergent, then a slight
> > redesign of ntb_hw.c might be necessary. But from what I've seen of other
> > designs on the internet, they appear to be extremely similar. The transport and
> > client drivers were written with the hardware abstracted away as much as
> > possible to prevent the need to modify it for different hardware. If there is
> > anything which is Intel hardware specific, I'd be happy to change it to make it
> > more generic.
> In ntb_process_tx(), ntb uses hard-coding 'memcpy_toio' to copy data
> to remote.
> Is it better to provide a function pointer like 'tx()' and call qp->tx().
> memcpy_toio is a slow operation. Some hardware can setup a dma
> transfer and wait.
>
> IMHO, the best way is to handle tx in async mode. But it requires
> lots of modification.
Actually this is what I'm working on now, using async_tx to replace the
memcpy. I believe the changes shouldn't be that significant.
Is the "hardware that can setup dma" you refer to something that does
not use this interface?
Thanks,
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists