From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <Allen.Hubbe@dell.com>
Received: from esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa2.dell-outbound.iphmx.com. [68.232.149.220])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i81si431503ywe.18.2017.08.02.06.06.56
        for <linux-ntb@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Allen Hubbe" <Allen.Hubbe@dell.com>
References: <20170725205753.4735-1-logang@deltatee.com> <20170725205753.4735-15-logang@deltatee.com> <20170801191050.GJ4186@kudzu.us> <dda576ad-d3ca-814b-f0cf-478cbb61adf2@deltatee.com>
In-Reply-To: <dda576ad-d3ca-814b-f0cf-478cbb61adf2@deltatee.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 14/16] switchtec_ntb: implement scratchpad registers
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:06:42 -0400
Message-ID: <000001d30b90$31697f70$943c7e50$@dell.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-us
To: 'Logan Gunthorpe' <logang@deltatee.com>, 'Jon Mason' <jdmason@kudzu.us>
Cc: linux-ntb@googlegroups.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Dave Jiang' <dave.jiang@intel.com>, 'Bjorn Helgaas' <bhelgaas@google.com>, 'Greg Kroah-Hartman' <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, 'Kurt Schwemmer' <kurt.schwemmer@microsemi.com>, 'Stephen Bates' <sbates@raithlin.com>, 'Serge Semin' <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
List-ID: <linux-ntb.googlegroups.com>

From: Logan Gunthorpe
> On 01/08/17 01:10 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> > It would probaly be better if I remarked about the SPADs in the actual
> > patch about the SPADS :)
> >
> > The whole point of using the SPADs in the NTB driver was to workaround
> > the problems establishing a connection between the two sides of the
> > NTB and where everything lives.  So, using a MW to get around the
> > SPADs is sort of backwards (and slightly funny).  I realize you are
> > trying to use the existing transport with minimal changes to enable
> > your hardware, and thus this makes logical sense to you.  However, if
> > the SPADs are not really needed, then we should either remove them
> > from the transport (or use them for something else).
> >
> > Per my comment in the other patch, I'm amenable to take this series
> > as-is, assuming you are willing to address this design issue in the
> > near future.  Thoughts?
> 
> Yes, I agree. I'd be willing to help but it seems the clients are
> written the way they are for the other drivers, so it's their needs
> (which I'm not fully aware of) that have to be considered.

The proposed change, removing use of spads from transport, would not affect ntrdma.

> I've also made all the other changes you sent as well as the file rename
> Dave requested. Once I see the bug fix patch you were going to pull hit
> ntb-next I'll rebase, test and resubmit.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Logan