Excerpts from Frederic Barrat's message of 2016-06-30 17:50:00 +0200:
>
> Le 30/06/2016 17:32, Ian Munsie a écrit :
> >> For dedicated mode, the CAIA recommends an explicit reset of the AFU
> >> >(section 2.1.1).
> > True, I had forgotten that procedure was added to the document before it
> > was
Le 30/06/2016 17:32, Ian Munsie a écrit :
For dedicated mode, the CAIA recommends an explicit reset of the AFU
>(section 2.1.1).
True, I had forgotten that procedure was added to the document before it
was made public - I'll update the comment and resend.
Actually, my point was that for ded
Excerpts from Frederic Barrat's message of 2016-06-30 16:19:54 +0200:
> I'm not a big fan of the new "clear" argument, which forces us to pass
> an extra 0 most of the time. Why not always clearing the "action" bits
> of the register before applying the command? They are mutually
> exclusive, so
Hi Ian,
-static int afu_control(struct cxl_afu *afu, u64 command,
+static int afu_control(struct cxl_afu *afu, u64 command, u64 clear,
u64 result, u64 mask, bool enabled)
I'm not a big fan of the new "clear" argument, which forces us to pass
an extra 0 most of the time.
From: Ian Munsie
The AFU disable operation has a bug where it will not clear the enable
bit and therefore will have no effect. To date this has likely been
masked by fact that we perform an AFU reset before the disable, which
also has the effect of clearing the enable bit, making the following
di
