On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 07:02:18PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >On 11/05/2015 12:12 AM, Gavin Shan wrote: >>This enables M64 window on P7IOC, which has been enabled on PHB3. >>Different from PHB3 where 16 M64 BARs are supported and each of >>them can be owned by one particular PE# exclusively or divided >>evenly to 256 segments, every P7IOC PHB has 16 M64 BARs and each >>of them are divided to 8 segments. So every P7IOC PHB supports >>128 M64 segments in total. P7IOC has M64DT, which helps mapping >>one particular M64 segment# to arbitrary PE#. PHB3 doesn't have >>M64DT, indicating that one M64 segment can only be pinned to the >>fixed PE#. In order to have same code to support M64 on P7IOC and >>PHB3, we just provide 128 M64 segments on every P7IOC PHB and each >>of them is pinned to the fixed PE# by bypassing the function of >>M64DT. In turn, we just need different phb->init_m64() for P7IOC >>and PHB3 to support M64. > >I thought we decided (Ben suggested?) not to push P7IOC code now (or ever) as >there is no user for it, has this changed? > Remember that the code is mixed for P7IOC/PHB3. It's not harmful to support M64 window on P7IOC, which is much larger than M32. >btw please put ioda1/ioda2/p7ioc/etc to the subject line to make it easier to >see how much work is there about particular PHB type. You rename quite many >functions and I generally want to ask you to group all renaming patches first >but it would also make sense to keep them close to (for example) >p7ioc-related patches so having more descriptive subject lines may help. >Thanks. > As the code is mixed for P7IOC/PHB3, I'm not following the line (IODA1/IODA2/p7ioc/phb3) in this patchset. Instead, the sequence of patchset is order related to: cod refactoring, IO/M32/M64, DMA, PE allocation/releaseing. Thanks, Gavin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
