On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:42:51PM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote: > Replace the magical +2, +9 etc. with +MB, which is far easier to read. > > Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <[email protected]> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > --- > arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c > index 3116f579841a..3bc1e49d6c41 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/early-quirks.c > @@ -428,9 +428,9 @@ static resource_size_t __init chv_stolen_size(int num, > int slot, int func) > if (gms < 0x11) > return gms * MB(32); > else if (gms < 0x17) > - return (gms - 0x11 + 2) * MB(4); > + return (gms - 0x11) * MB(4) + MB(8); > else > - return (gms - 0x17 + 9) * MB(4); > + return (gms - 0x17) * MB(4) + MB(36);
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> But now I'm thinking we should also reverse the if ladders... if (gms >= 0x17) return (gms - 0x17) * ...; else if (gms >= 0x11) return (gms - 0x11) * ...; else return gms * ...; Better? I think so. > } > > static resource_size_t __init gen9_stolen_size(int num, int slot, int func) > @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static resource_size_t __init gen9_stolen_size(int num, > int slot, int func) > if (gms < 0xf0) > return gms * MB(32); > else > - return (gms - 0xf0 + 1) * MB(4); > + return (gms - 0xf0) * MB(4) + MB(4); > } > > struct intel_early_ops { > -- > 2.14.3 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
