Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 19/06/17 02:07 PM, Jon Mason wrote: >> I think this code is of quality enough to go from an RFC to a standard >> patch, and we can nit pick it to death there ;-) > > Thanks! > >> Please rebase on ntb-next (which

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 19/06/17 02:07 PM, Jon Mason wrote: >> I think this code is of quality enough to go from an RFC to a standard >> patch, and we can nit pick it to death there ;-) > > Thanks! > >> Please rebase on ntb-next (which I believe you are

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 19/06/17 02:07 PM, Jon Mason wrote: > I think this code is of quality enough to go from an RFC to a standard > patch, and we can nit pick it to death there ;-) Thanks! > Please rebase on ntb-next (which I believe you are already doing), and > resbutmit. I'll try to get the rebase done and

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 19/06/17 02:07 PM, Jon Mason wrote: > I think this code is of quality enough to go from an RFC to a standard > patch, and we can nit pick it to death there ;-) Thanks! > Please rebase on ntb-next (which I believe you are already doing), and > resbutmit. I'll try to get the rebase done and

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:37:16PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > Hi, > > This patchset implements Non-Transparent Bridge (NTB) support for the > Microsemi Switchtec series of switches. We're looking for some > review from the community at this point but hope to get it upstreamed > for v4.14. >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:37:16PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > Hi, > > This patchset implements Non-Transparent Bridge (NTB) support for the > Microsemi Switchtec series of switches. We're looking for some > review from the community at this point but hope to get it upstreamed > for v4.14. >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 07:09:59AM +0200, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:21:00PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:34:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > > wrote: > > > Now, if you'd like to actually review the code I'd be happy to

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 07:09:59AM +0200, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:21:00PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:34:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > > wrote: > > > Now, if you'd like to actually review the code I'd be happy to address > > > any

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 11:09 PM, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > Ah, but the patchset does seem to properly formatted. At least it's > easy for me to review as-published, while a much smaller number of > patches, making much larger individual patches, would be much much > harder to review. > > But what do

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 11:09 PM, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > Ah, but the patchset does seem to properly formatted. At least it's > easy for me to review as-published, while a much smaller number of > patches, making much larger individual patches, would be much much > harder to review. > > But what do

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 11:09 PM, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > Ah, but the patchset does seem to properly formatted. At least it's > easy for me to review as-published, while a much smaller number of > patches, making much larger individual patches, would be much much > harder to review. > > But what do

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 11:09 PM, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' wrote: > Ah, but the patchset does seem to properly formatted. At least it's > easy for me to review as-published, while a much smaller number of > patches, making much larger individual patches, would be much much > harder to review. > > But what do

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:21:00PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:34:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > wrote: > > Now, if you'd like to actually review the code I'd be happy to address > > any concerns you find. I won't be responding to any more

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:21:00PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:34:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > wrote: > > Now, if you'd like to actually review the code I'd be happy to address > > any concerns you find. I won't be responding to any more philosophical > > arguments or

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:34:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 16/06/17 12:38 PM, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:08:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > > wrote: > > It's the way the NTB API was created for, to have set of

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 01:34:59PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 16/06/17 12:38 PM, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:08:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > > wrote: > > It's the way the NTB API was created for, to have set of functions to access > > NTB devices in the

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 12:38 PM, Serge Semin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:08:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > wrote: > It's the way the NTB API was created for, to have set of functions to access > NTB devices in the similar way. These aren't my beliefs, it's the way it was >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 12:38 PM, Serge Semin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:08:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe > wrote: > It's the way the NTB API was created for, to have set of functions to access > NTB devices in the similar way. These aren't my beliefs, it's the way it was > created. I agree it can

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 12:08 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > Alright. I'll leave it to you to find and reconcile common functionalities > of the drivers. What about making spad emulation optional? Ok. I don't see the point of making spad emulation optional. Who would want to disable it and what would be the

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 12:08 PM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > Alright. I'll leave it to you to find and reconcile common functionalities > of the drivers. What about making spad emulation optional? Ok. I don't see the point of making spad emulation optional. Who would want to disable it and what would be the

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:08:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 16/06/17 10:33 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > > New NTB API is going to be merged to mainline kernel within next features > > merge window, so it's really recommended to use that API for new hardware. > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:08:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 16/06/17 10:33 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > > New NTB API is going to be merged to mainline kernel within next features > > merge window, so it's really recommended to use that API for new hardware. > > Could you please

RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

From: Logan Gunthorpe > On 16/06/17 09:34 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > > In code review, I really only have found minor nits. Overall, the driver > > looks good. > > Great, thanks for such a quick review! > > > In switchtec_ntb_part_op, there is a delay of up to 50s (1000 * 50ms). > > This looks

RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

From: Logan Gunthorpe > On 16/06/17 09:34 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > > In code review, I really only have found minor nits. Overall, the driver > > looks good. > > Great, thanks for such a quick review! > > > In switchtec_ntb_part_op, there is a delay of up to 50s (1000 * 50ms). > > This looks

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:47:21AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 16/06/17 09:34 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > > In code review, I really only have found minor nits. Overall, the driver > > looks good. > > Great, thanks for such a quick review! > > > In

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:47:21AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On 16/06/17 09:34 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > > In code review, I really only have found minor nits. Overall, the driver > > looks good. > > Great, thanks for such a quick review! > > > In switchtec_ntb_part_op, there is a

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 10:33 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > New NTB API is going to be merged to mainline kernel within next features > merge window, so it's really recommended to use that API for new hardware. > Could you please rabase your driver on top of the tree? > https://github.com/jonmason/ntb.git Yes,

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 10:33 AM, Serge Semin wrote: > New NTB API is going to be merged to mainline kernel within next features > merge window, so it's really recommended to use that API for new hardware. > Could you please rabase your driver on top of the tree? > https://github.com/jonmason/ntb.git Yes,

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 09:34 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > In code review, I really only have found minor nits. Overall, the driver > looks good. Great, thanks for such a quick review! > In switchtec_ntb_part_op, there is a delay of up to 50s (1000 * 50ms). This > looks like a thread context, so it could

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 09:34 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > In code review, I really only have found minor nits. Overall, the driver > looks good. Great, thanks for such a quick review! > In switchtec_ntb_part_op, there is a delay of up to 50s (1000 * 50ms). This > looks like a thread context, so it could

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

Hello Logan. Thanks for the new hardware driver. It's really great to see NTB subsystem being developed. New NTB API is going to be merged to mainline kernel within next features merge window, so it's really recommended to use that API for new hardware. Could you please rabase your driver on top

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

Hello Logan. Thanks for the new hardware driver. It's really great to see NTB subsystem being developed. New NTB API is going to be merged to mainline kernel within next features merge window, so it's really recommended to use that API for new hardware. Could you please rabase your driver on top

RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

From: Logan Gunthorpe > On 16/06/17 07:53 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > > See what is staged in https://github.com/jonmason/ntb.git ntb-next, with > > the addition of multi-peer > support by Serge. It would be good at this stage to understand whether the > api changes there would > also support the

RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

From: Logan Gunthorpe > On 16/06/17 07:53 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > > See what is staged in https://github.com/jonmason/ntb.git ntb-next, with > > the addition of multi-peer > support by Serge. It would be good at this stage to understand whether the > api changes there would > also support the

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 07:53 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > See what is staged in https://github.com/jonmason/ntb.git ntb-next, with the > addition of multi-peer support by Serge. It would be good at this stage to > understand whether the api changes there would also support the Switchtec > driver, and what

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

On 16/06/17 07:53 AM, Allen Hubbe wrote: > See what is staged in https://github.com/jonmason/ntb.git ntb-next, with the > addition of multi-peer support by Serge. It would be good at this stage to > understand whether the api changes there would also support the Switchtec > driver, and what

RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

From: Logan Gunthorpe > Hi, > > This patchset implements Non-Transparent Bridge (NTB) support for the > Microsemi Switchtec series of switches. We're looking for some > review from the community at this point but hope to get it upstreamed > for v4.14. > > Switchtec NTB support is configured over

RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

From: Logan Gunthorpe > Hi, > > This patchset implements Non-Transparent Bridge (NTB) support for the > Microsemi Switchtec series of switches. We're looking for some > review from the community at this point but hope to get it upstreamed > for v4.14. > > Switchtec NTB support is configured over

[RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

Hi, This patchset implements Non-Transparent Bridge (NTB) support for the Microsemi Switchtec series of switches. We're looking for some review from the community at this point but hope to get it upstreamed for v4.14. Switchtec NTB support is configured over the same function and bar as the

[RFC PATCH 00/13] Switchtec NTB Support

Hi, This patchset implements Non-Transparent Bridge (NTB) support for the Microsemi Switchtec series of switches. We're looking for some review from the community at this point but hope to get it upstreamed for v4.14. Switchtec NTB support is configured over the same function and bar as the