Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1309444 > unrolled thread

RE: [PATCH V3 0/2] AMD NTB V3 changes

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  RE: [PATCH V3 0/2] AMD NTB V3 changes "Allen Hubbe" <Allen.Hubbe@emc.com> - 2016-01-14 17:00 +0100
    RE: [PATCH V3 0/2] AMD NTB V3 changes "Yu, Xiangliang" <Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com> - 2016-01-15 03:30 +0100

#1309444 — RE: [PATCH V3 0/2] AMD NTB V3 changes

> From: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com>
> 
> Main changes in V3
> 1. Remove all power managment related code.

Can you send the third patch with the power management code?  I think it is important functionality.

Furthermore, a review of the power management patch will help with getting the flush patch accepted.  If the power management patch is reviewed and acked as is, the flush patch is probably ok, too, as is.  If there are changes to power management that are also applicable to the flush patch, it would be good to keep it all consistent when adding the functionality to the api.

> 2. Put makefile and kconfig changes in first patch.
> 3. Call readl/writel directly, not use macros to hide it.

I think this is almost ready.  See comments in NTB: Add AMD PCI-Express NTB driver.

Allen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1309825

> > From: Xiangliang Yu <Xiangliang.Yu@amd.com>
> >
> > Main changes in V3
> > 1. Remove all power managment related code.
> 
> Can you send the third patch with the power management code?  I think it is
> important functionality.

Actually, I have answered the question in V2 comments. Now again, 
I want to submitted all power management related code if runtime part is ready.

> Furthermore, a review of the power management patch will help with
> getting the flush patch accepted.  If the power management patch is
> reviewed and acked as is, the flush patch is probably ok, too, as is.  If there
> are changes to power management that are also applicable to the flush patch,
> it would be good to keep it all consistent when adding the functionality to the
> api.

I want to add flush function into ntb_transport.c, but I can't verify the implementation
Because hardware is not ready.  So I just define a interface this time for future use.
I notice there are lot of interface that hasn't been used in ntb.h.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web