Micha Nelissen <mi...@neli.hopto.org> wrote: > > Bounine, Alexandre wrote: > > 1. The destid for the switch needs an additional mechanism to share it > > among processors in the RIO network, > > ? See comment for 2) > > > 2. It takes ID value away from the pool of available IDs, what will > > It does not take an ID away, it shares it with a connected endpoint to > that switch. The tag uses one extra bit to identify the device as a > switch instead of an endpoint. This provides the information to > unambiguously identify a switch from an endpoint.
OK taking away #2. But do not see how it justifies storing two values of destid. And you have just confirmed using CT for unique identification. We simply have differences in interpretation of CT: you are using component tag to pass unique identification and I am using CT as a unique identification. I prefer not to assume any relationship between routing information and the component tag. Alex. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
