AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20080215154822.372ddcf7@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<mike.lee@onstor.com>,<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>,<dl-Cougar@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E07A8D9CB@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:49:33 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Mike Lee" <mike.lee@onstor.com>
Cc: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>, "dl-Cougar"
 <dl-Cougar@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: Are the FPs created equal...
Message-ID: <20080215154933.3ae53a8a@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E07A8D9CB@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0862724C@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E07A8D9CB@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:06:48 -0800 "Mike Lee" <mike.lee@onstor.com>
wrote:

> 
> Thanks Max. 
> Guess I should have picked up on Andy's point about "any FP" during
> lunch on Tuesday...

I said FP_ANY, not "any FP".  Twice.

> Could have saved me a few days worth of frustration...

So, why didn't you just do like I said (twice)?

> So, when convenient, please let me know if you have the answer to
> question c below...

See code in

linux/kernel/linux-mips-2.6/drivers/ssc-mgmt-bus/

Say, while you're there, could you please port prom.c to Cougar?
There's a good fellow.

Cheers,

a

> -Mike
> 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: 	Maxim Kozlovsky  
> > Sent:	Friday, February 15, 2008 11:54 AM
> > To:	Mike Lee
> > Cc:	dl-Cougar
> > Subject:	RE: Are the FPs created equal...
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Just use FP_ANY. Since all FPs are equal there could not possibly
> > be a reason to try to pick up a particular FP.
> > 
> > Max
> > 
> > _____________________________________________
> > From: Mike Lee 
> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 11:46 AM
> > To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> > Cc: dl-Cougar
> > Subject: Are the FPs created equal...
> > 
> > Hi Max:
> > 
> > I found that sending RMC messages from the SSC to FP3 and FP4 does
> > not seem to work, while sending to FP1 and FP2 works to expectation.
> > 
> > This assessment is based on the fact that when I intercept the
> > FP-bound RMC message in rmc_internal_senddata() (ssc-rmc/rmc.c) and
> > force the destination CPU to be 2 or 3 (or 7 for "any"), then
> > message gets to the destination (and NDMP does not hang):
> >         if ((sess->raddr.eaddr.seee_cpu != 2) &&
> >             (sess->raddr.eaddr.seee_cpu != 3)) {
> > 	    sess->raddr.eaddr.seee_cpu = 7;
> >         }
> > 
> > If the cpu id had been 4 (FP3) or 5 (FP4), then the RMC message
> > would seem to get sent successfully, i.e. no error returned from
> > sendmsg() / sendto(), but the management bus driver code would not
> > receive it to do the FP-forwarding.
> > 
> > My questions are:
> > a. are the FPs created equal? 
> > b. is my "hack" logic above an acceptable workaround?
> > c. what Onstor code gets executed between sendto() on the SSC and
> > the mgmtBus_rxPacket() on the TxRx?  I think something is missing
> > in that the new Cougar FPs are not fully supported.
> > 
> > Thanks for your help again.
> > 
> > -Mike
