On 08/07/2015 03:54 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:44:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:43:01PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:33:33AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:36:56AM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 09:41:41PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 03:36:01PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 09:25:03AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
When M64 BAR is set to Single PE mode, the PE# assigned to VF could be
discrete.
s/discrete/sparse/ may be?
This patch restructures the patch to allocate discrete PE# for VFs when M64
BAR is set to Single PE mode.
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiy...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h | 2 +-
arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
index 8aeba4c..72415c7 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pci-bridge.h
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ struct pci_dn {
#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
u16 vfs_expanded; /* number of VFs IOV BAR expanded */
u16 num_vfs; /* number of VFs enabled*/
- int offset; /* PE# for the first VF PE */
+ int *offset; /* PE# for the first VF PE or array */
bool m64_single_mode; /* Use M64 BAR in Single Mode */
#define IODA_INVALID_M64 (-1)
int (*m64_map)[PCI_SRIOV_NUM_BARS];
how about renaming "offset" to "pe_num_map", or "pe_map" ? Similar to the
comments
I gave to the "m64_bar_map", num_of_max_vfs entries can be allocated. Though not
all of them will be used, not too much memory will be wasted.
Thanks for your comment.
I have thought about change the name to make it more self explain. While
another fact I want to take in is this field is also used to be reflect the
shift offset when M64 BAR is used in the Shared Mode. So I maintain the name.
How about use "enum", one maintain the name "offset", and another one rename to
"pe_num_map". And use the meaningful name at proper place?
So I suppose you agree with my naming proposal.
No, I dislike the "enum" things.
OK, then you suggest to rename it pe_num_map or keep it as offset?
pe_num_map would be better.
+1. @offset is very confusing.
It could be a linked list actually, "struct list_head pe_list" in pci_dn
and "struct list_head next" in struct pnv_ioda_pe. I could not quickly
spot places where you would access this array outside a loop
for(i=0;i<num_vfs;++i).
--
Alexey
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
