Micha Nelissen wrote: > Alexandre Bounine wrote: > > @@ -369,6 +380,10 @@ static struct rio_dev __devinit *rio_set > > rdev->rswitch->switchid); > > rio_route_set_ops(rdev); > > > > + if (do_enum && rdev->rswitch->clr_table) > > + rdev->rswitch->clr_table(port, destid, hopcount, > > + RIO_GLOBAL_TABLE); > > + > > list_add_tail(&rswitch->node, &rio_switches); > > > > } else > > Why clear the tables here, why not in rio_enum_peer?
I prefer to keep it together with route table image initialization. > > > +DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI572, tsi57x_route_add_entry, > tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table); > > +DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI574, tsi57x_route_add_entry, > tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table); > > +DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI577, tsi57x_route_add_entry, > tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table); > > +DECLARE_RIO_ROUTE_OPS(RIO_VID_TUNDRA, RIO_DID_TSI578, tsi57x_route_add_entry, > tsi57x_route_get_entry, tsi57x_route_clr_table); > > Can the 568 and 578 driver be shared? Have a 5xx driver? For route table operations this will work. But there are Error Management functions added in follow-up patches, which are different for Tsi568. I prefer to keep them in different files to avoid hiding the differences. Plus, it makes easier for end-user to remove from the build drivers for switches that are not used in their system. I do not want to add new configuration options for switch selection at this moment but we may consider it later. Alex. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
