Re: FireWire/SBP2 Target mode
From: Chris Boot
Date: Mon Feb 06 2012 - 18:09:54 EST
On 6 Feb 2012, at 23:00, Julian Calaby wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 09:28, Chris Boot <bootc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2012, at 20:26, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> On Feb 06 Chris Boot wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2012 14:43, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
>>>>> Chris Boot wrote:
>>>>>> You can pull the code from:
>>>>> The TODO file says:
>>>>>> * Update Juju so we can get the speed in the fw_address_handler callback
>>>>> What is the speed needed for?
>>>> "The speed at which the block write request to the MANAGEMENT_AGENT
>>>> register is received shall determine the speed used by the target for
>>>> all subsequent requests to read the initiator’s configuration ROM, fetch
>>>> ORB’s from initiator memory or store status at the initiator’s
>>>> status_FIFO. Command block ORB’s separately specify the speed for
>>>> requests addressed to the data buffer or page table."
>>>> (T10/1155D Revision 4 page 53/54)
>>> I guess it is not too hard to add this to the AR-req handler. On the
>>> other hand, I see little reason to follow the SBP-2 spec to the letter
>>> here. The target driver could just use the maximum speed that the core
>>> figured out. On the other hand, this requires of course
>>> - the target to wait for core to finish scanning an initiator,
>>> - the core to offer an API to look up an fw_device by a
>>> card--generation--nodeID tuple.
>>> The intention of the spec is IMO clearly to enable target implementations
>>> that do not need to implement topology scanning. I have a hard time to
>>> think of a valid scenario where an initiator needs to be able to steer a
>>> target towards a lower wire speed than what the participating links and
>>> PHYs actually support.
>> The only thing stopping me from getting the speed is the fact that struct fw_request is opaque. The value is easily available from request->response.speed and I kind of do that already in a very hackish way. I've sent a separate patch which adds a function that can be used to access that one value.
>> Waiting until the bus scan is complete isn't actually that great as I see the first LOGIN requests often before the fw_node is seen at all. I'd have to turn away the requester and hope they try again. I'm fairly sure my little tweak in my patch is a simple enough solution.
> Stupid question: Could you use a completion queue or something
> equivalent to wait until you have seen the fw_node, *then* process the
> LOGIN request?
The fw_address_handler callback is called in interrupt context, and I can't sleep from within there. As far as I'm aware I must call fw_send_response() from within the callback and can't defer that until I've scheduled something on a work queue. Please correct me if I'm wrong though, as that might be useful anyway.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/