Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:54:17 +0100
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@intel.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@gmail.com>,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@gmail.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/28] thunderbolt: Extend tunnel creation to more
 than 2 adjacent switches
Message-ID: <20190212125417.4an7efllnf7pqw2v@wunner.de>
References: <20190206131738.43696-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20190206131738.43696-15-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20190210153328.44ur6o5z2xjae42c@wunner.de>
 <20190211084558.GU7875@lahna.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190211084558.GU7875@lahna.fi.intel.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:45:58AM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:33:28PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > at the bottom of this page there's
> > a figure showing a PCI tunnel between non-adjacent switches (blue line):
> > 
> > https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/ThunderboltDevGuide/Basics/Basics.html
> > 
> Are you sure Apple actually uses setup like that? I think I have never
> seen such configuration happening on any of the devices I have.

Sorry, I don't know if they actually use that.


> I can update the changelog to mention that if you think it is useful.
> Something like below maybe?
> 
>  PCIe actually does not need this as it is typically a daisy chain
>  between two adjacent switches but this way we do not need to hard-code
>  creation of the tunnel.

LGTM, thanks.


> > > +	i = 0;
> > > +	tb_for_each_port(in_port, src, dst)
> > > +		i++;
> > 
> > This looks more complicated than necessary.  Isn't the path length
> > always the length of the route string from in_port switch to out_port
> > switch, plus 2 for the adapter on each end?  Or do paths without
> > adapters exist?
> 
> Yes, I think you are right.

Simply subtracting the depths of the start and end port's switch also yields
the path length.  Of course this assumes that tunnels aren't established
between non-adjacent switches, but your algorithm doesn't do that.

Thanks,

Lukas