On 08/01/2012 12:12 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Do you have any specific reason
> for wanting to change this code? If not I would rather not change it
> since as is it is probably more appropriate then splitting up the RSTI
> and RSTD bit reads.
Thanks for the full explanation. I don't have any
On 08/01/2012 10:36 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 09:38 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 02:40 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> There is a comment in ixgbe_reset_hw_vf() in the ixgbevf driver that
>>> says, "we cannot reset while the RSTI / RSTD bits are asserted".
>>>
>>> Accord
On 08/01/2012 09:38 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 02:40 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> There is a comment in ixgbe_reset_hw_vf() in the ixgbevf driver that
>> says, "we cannot reset while the RSTI / RSTD bits are asserted".
>>
>> According to the datasheet, this is false. We cannot rese
On 07/31/2012 02:40 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> There is a comment in ixgbe_reset_hw_vf() in the ixgbevf driver that
> says, "we cannot reset while the RSTI / RSTD bits are asserted".
>
> According to the datasheet, this is false. We cannot reset while the
> RSTI bit is asserted, but the RSTD bi
There is a comment in ixgbe_reset_hw_vf() in the ixgbevf driver that
says, "we cannot reset while the RSTI / RSTD bits are asserted".
According to the datasheet, this is false. We cannot reset while the
RSTI bit is asserted, but the RSTD bit means in fact that the reset is
complete and there
