> > > +static void cxl_destroy_dc_regions(CXLType3Dev *ct3d)
> > > +{
> > > +CXLDCExtent *ent;
> > > +
> > > +while (!QTAILQ_EMPTY(>dc.extents)) {
> > > +ent = QTAILQ_FIRST(>dc.extents);
> > > +cxl_remove_extent_from_extent_list(>dc.extents, ent);
> >
> > Isn't this same
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:39:50 -0800
fan wrote:
> > > +}
> > > +if (len2) {
> > > +cxl_insert_extent_to_extent_list(extent_list,
> > > dpa + len,
> > > + len2, NULL, 0);
> > >
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:28:27PM +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:34:03 -0800
> nifan@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > From: Fan Ni
> >
> > Per CXL spec 3.1, two mailbox commands are implemented:
> > Add Dynamic Capacity Response (Opcode 4802h) 8.2.9.9.9.3, and
> > Release
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:28:27PM +, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:34:03 -0800
> nifan@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > From: Fan Ni
> >
> > Per CXL spec 3.1, two mailbox commands are implemented:
> > Add Dynamic Capacity Response (Opcode 4802h) 8.2.9.9.9.3, and
> > Release
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 11:34:03 -0800
nifan@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Fan Ni
>
> Per CXL spec 3.1, two mailbox commands are implemented:
> Add Dynamic Capacity Response (Opcode 4802h) 8.2.9.9.9.3, and
> Release Dynamic Capacity (Opcode 4803h) 8.2.9.9.9.4.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fan Ni
Hmm. So I
From: Fan Ni
Per CXL spec 3.1, two mailbox commands are implemented:
Add Dynamic Capacity Response (Opcode 4802h) 8.2.9.9.9.3, and
Release Dynamic Capacity (Opcode 4803h) 8.2.9.9.9.4.
Signed-off-by: Fan Ni
---
hw/cxl/cxl-mailbox-utils.c | 310
