Bounine, Alexandre wrote:

Micha Nelissen wrote:

quoted

Alexandre Bounine wrote:

quoted

 /**
+ * rio_em_set_ops- Sets Error Managment operations for a particular

vendor switch

quoted

quoted

+ * @rdev: RIO device
+ *
+ * Searches the RIO EM ops table for known switch types. If the vid
+ * and did match a switch table entry, then set the em_init() and
+ * em_handle() ops to the table entry values.

Shouldn't any RIO device be able to support error management, not just
switches?

Only if a device reports this capability by having Error Management
Extended Features block.
Ideally, we have to provide default handler for every such device (I am
planning it for some future updates). It should be the same as for
routing operations - if the standard feature exists, it has to be used
unless something else takes over.

Yes, therefore I thought that: or the EM_OPS are per driver, or they can 
be integrated in the switch hooks list.

For now I keep all port-write messages from end-points serviced by their
individual drivers. One of reasons for this: the EM PW message format

Maybe have a generic rio function that can be called by any driver that 
knows a particular port-write was due to error management causes? This 
function would read the standard defined EF block registers. Then the 
driver part can be quite small.

quoted

quoted

+	if (port->ops->pwenable)
+		port->ops->pwenable(port, enable);
+}
+

Maybe this can be done by switch->init function?

This is not per-switch function. This function enables mport to receive
incoming PW messages. Per-switch PW enable is done in switch->init as
for Tsi57x. 

Oops, I meant this comment for the em_init function call.

quoted

quoted

+			rio_mport_write_config_32(mport, destid,

hopcount,

quoted

quoted

+				rdev->phys_efptr +
+					RIO_PORT_N_ACK_STS_CSR(portnum),
+				RIO_PORT_N_ACK_CLEAR);

This doesn't work for the 568; but the 568 has no special handling?

Tsi568 will not send EM PW message. Tsi568 PWs are disabled in its
em_init().

Why?

quoted

quoted

+DECLARE_RIO_EM_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI578, tsi57x_em_init,

tsi57x_em_handler);

quoted

Why not declare these along with the other ops?

Because the EM extensions is a separate capability. It is not guaranteed
to be in every switch.

They might initialize them with NULL to indicate they don't support it?

Micha