On 9/22/23 13:08, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 04.09.2023 16:28, Jonathan Cameron:
>> From: Dave Jiang <dave.ji...@intel.com>
>>
>> According to ACPI spec 6.5 5.2.28.4 System Locality Latency and Bandwidth
>> Information Structure, if the "Entry Base Unit" is 1024 for BW and the
>> matrix entry has the value of 100, the BW is 100 GB/s. So the
>> entry_base_unit should be changed from 1000 to 1024 given the comment notes
>> it's 16GB/s for .latency_bandwidth.
>>
>> Fixes: 882877fc359d ("hw/pci-bridge/cxl-upstream: Add a CDAT table access
>> DOE")
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.ji...@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.came...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> hw/pci-bridge/cxl_upstream.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/pci-bridge/cxl_upstream.c b/hw/pci-bridge/cxl_upstream.c
>> index 9159f48a8c..2b9cf0cc97 100644
>> --- a/hw/pci-bridge/cxl_upstream.c
>> +++ b/hw/pci-bridge/cxl_upstream.c
>> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static int build_cdat_table(CDATSubHeader ***cdat_table,
>> void *priv)
>> .length = sslbis_size,
>> },
>> .data_type = HMATLB_DATA_TYPE_ACCESS_BANDWIDTH,
>> - .entry_base_unit = 1000,
>> + .entry_base_unit = 1024,
>> },
>> };
>
> BTW, is this one stable-worthly? How it's been found, - due to some real
> issue or just by code review?
Code review. I was doing CXL CDAT parsing. So I guess I'm the first user. It's
small enough that it won't make much of a difference for the resulting computed
data. Mostly just correctness fixing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
>
>
