Micha Nelissen wrote:

Alexandre Bounine wrote:

quoted

@@ -369,6 +380,10 @@ static struct rio_dev __devinit *rio_set
 			     rdev->rswitch->switchid);
 		rio_route_set_ops(rdev);

+		if (do_enum && rdev->rswitch->clr_table)
+			rdev->rswitch->clr_table(port, destid, hopcount,
+						 RIO_GLOBAL_TABLE);
+
 		list_add_tail(&rswitch->node, &rio_switches);

 	} else

=20
Why clear the tables here, why not in rio_enum_peer?

I prefer to keep it together with route table image initialization.=20

=20

quoted

+DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI572,

tsi57x_route_add_entry,

tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table);

quoted

+DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI574,

tsi57x_route_add_entry,

tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table);

quoted

+DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI577,

tsi57x_route_add_entry,

tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table);

quoted

+DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI578,

tsi57x_route_add_entry,

tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table);
=20
Can the 568 and 578 driver be shared? Have a 5xx driver?

For route table operations this will work. But there are Error
Management functions added in follow-up patches, which are different for
Tsi568. I prefer to keep them in different files to avoid hiding the
differences. Plus, it makes easier for end-user to remove from the build
drivers for switches that are not used in their system. I do not want to
add new configuration options for switch selection at this moment but we
may consider it later.=20

Alex.
 =20