Hi,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:37:41AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Pratik Sampat's message of July 21, 2020 8:29 pm:
> >
> >
> > On 20/07/20 5:27 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 18, 2020 4:53 am:
> >>> Replace the variable na
Excerpts from Pratik Sampat's message of July 21, 2020 8:29 pm:
>
>
> On 20/07/20 5:27 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 18, 2020 4:53 am:
>>> Replace the variable name from using "pnv_first_spr_loss_level" to
>>> "pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level".
On 20/07/20 5:27 am, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 18, 2020 4:53 am:
Replace the variable name from using "pnv_first_spr_loss_level" to
"pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level".
As pnv_first_spr_loss_level is supposed to be the earliest state that
has OP
Excerpts from Pratik Rajesh Sampat's message of July 18, 2020 4:53 am:
> Replace the variable name from using "pnv_first_spr_loss_level" to
> "pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level".
>
> As pnv_first_spr_loss_level is supposed to be the earliest state that
> has OPAL_PM_LOSE_FULL_CONTEXT set, however as
Replace the variable name from using "pnv_first_spr_loss_level" to
"pnv_first_fullstate_loss_level".
As pnv_first_spr_loss_level is supposed to be the earliest state that
has OPAL_PM_LOSE_FULL_CONTEXT set, however as shallow states too loose
SPR values, render an incorrect terminology.
Signed-off