On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:37:22PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >On 11/17/2015 12:42 PM, Gavin Shan wrote: >>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. > > >The patchset starts with removing dead code and then adds more dead code. >This is not right... > Sorry, you mean it's fine to break the code on P7IOC as it's going to be dead. But I'm curious when it's going happen, any idea about that? >>>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. > >But you should draw the bold line between PHB types imho. > >>Instead, the sequence of patchset is order related to: cod refactoring, >>IO/M32/M64, DMA, PE allocation/releaseing. > > >Some patches from this patchset are about P7IOC only. All I am asking is to >say specifically in the subject line what the patch touches - >IODA1/IODA2/p7ioc/phb3/all_of_them. Or I can walk through all of them, pick >P7IOC's ones, evaluate the amount of code and entropy they actually add and >then ask Ben what we do about it, it will just take longer rather than if you >did it. > Please give me a clear command what key words you need in the subject in next revision. What I understood is you want to see one of them: powerpc/powernv/ioda1: powerpc/powernv/ioda2: powerpc/powernv/all: Thanks, Gavin > >-- >Alexey > -- 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
