On Aug 29, 2014, at 1:27 PM, David Young wrote:
> bus_msi(9) gives MI code access to doorbells: MI code uses it to
> establish a doorbell -> interrupt handler mapping and find out the
> doorbell's physical address.
>
> All the code to map the doorbell's physaddr into a PCI busaddr, to
> program
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:36:47AM +1000, matthew green wrote:
>
> let's not forget my favourite mis-feature of MSI/MSI-X:
>
> if you misconfigure the address, interrupts might cause main memory to
> be corrupted. i've seen this happen, and it was rather difficult to
> diagnose the real culprit.
Hi dyoung,
(2014/06/07 2:56), David Young wrote:
> Here is the proposal that I came up with many months (a few years?) ago
> with input from Matt Thomas. I have tried to account for Matt's
> requirements, but I'm not sure that I have done so.
I have some questions about your bus_msi(9) proposal.
Hi dyoung,
(2014/06/07 5:56), David Young wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 07:06:00PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:56:53 -0500
From: David Young
Here is the proposal that I came up with many months (a few years?) ago
with input from Matt Thomas. I ha
Hello,
(2014/06/07 2:40), David Young wrote:
I think that MSI/MSI-X logically separates into a few pieces, what do
you think about these pieces?
1 An MI API for establishing "mailboxes" (or "doorbells" or whatever
we may call them). A mailbox is a special physical address (PA) or
PA/data
let's not forget my favourite mis-feature of MSI/MSI-X:
if you misconfigure the address, interrupts might cause main memory to
be corrupted. i've seen this happen, and it was rather difficult to
diagnose the real culprit..
i'm a little confused about bus_msi(9) -- pci_intr(9) is already an MD
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 07:06:00PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:56:53 -0500
>From: David Young
>
>Here is the proposal that I came up with many months (a few years?) ago
>with input from Matt Thomas. I have tried to account for Matt's
>requirement
On Jun 6, 2014, at 12:06 PM, Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:56:53 -0500
> From: David Young
>
> Here is the proposal that I came up with many months (a few years?) ago
> with input from Matt Thomas. I have tried to account for Matt's
> requirements, but I'm not
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:56:53 -0500
From: David Young
Here is the proposal that I came up with many months (a few years?) ago
with input from Matt Thomas. I have tried to account for Matt's
requirements, but I'm not sure that I have done so.
For those ignoramuses among us who re
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:40:54PM -0500, David Young wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:55:25PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm going to add MSI/MSI-X support to NetBSD. I list tasks about this.
> > Would you comment following task list?
>
> I think that MSI/MSI-X logically
On Jun 6, 2014, at 10:40 AM, David Young wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:55:25PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm going to add MSI/MSI-X support to NetBSD. I list tasks about this.
>> Would you comment following task list?
>
> I think that MSI/MSI-X logically separates into
On Jun 6, 2014, at 10:40 AM, David Young wrote:
> 1 An MI API for establishing "mailboxes" (or "doorbells" or whatever
> we may call them). A mailbox is a special physical address (PA) or
> PA/data-pair in correspondence with a callback (function, argument).
>
> An MI API for mapping the ma
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:55:25PM +0900, Kengo NAKAHARA wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm going to add MSI/MSI-X support to NetBSD. I list tasks about this.
> Would you comment following task list?
I think that MSI/MSI-X logically separates into a few pieces, what do
you think about these pieces?
1 An MI
Hello,
I'm going to add MSI/MSI-X support to NetBSD. I list tasks about this.
Would you comment following task list?
TODO
basic idea: keep current implementation as we can.
+ [x86 common MD] separate status of interrupt handlers to "registered" and
"assigned"
- currently, registering interr
14 matches
Mail list logo
