From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424100AbcBQPuP (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:50:15 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f174.google.com ([209.85.192.174]:34291 "EHLO mail-pf0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161721AbcBQPuM (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:50:12 -0500 Message-ID: <56C496AB.2070200@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:20:03 +0530 From: Sudip Mukherjee User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: One Thousand Gnomes CC: Adaptec OEM Raid Solutions , "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Thumshirn Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [SCSI] dpt_i2o: use proper pci driver References: <1455711614-5185-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20160217142732.6dcad24c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20160217142732.6dcad24c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 17 February 2016 07:57 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 17:50:14 +0530 > Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > >> This is a pci device but was not done in the usual way a pci driver is >> done. Convert the driver into a proper pci driver. > > This looks completely wrong. Please read the I2O 1.5 specification > document before playing with that code. You can't simply convert it to a > standard PCI driver as all the IOPs are supposed to be detected and then > the correct initialization sequence executed across the set of IOPs. IOPs > are allowed to talk to one another and the system table binds it all > together. Yes, thanks for letting me know about the spec. It is saying "The host locates each IOP, adds it to the system configuration table, and initializes the IOP’s outbound message queue. The host then provides each IOP with a list of all IOPs and the physical location of their inbound message queue." > > If you do hot plug then you need to follow the specification and do > all the extra notifications. Unless you've got multiple FC909/FC920 > fibechannel cards or similar to test with I would just leave this well > alone. point noted. > Your original simple patch is *MUCH* safer in this specific case. The original patch is already having NACK from Johannes. So i better leave this code here. regards sudip