Is my reasoning above invalid? If yes, please clarify what is wrong:
According to my calculations, my proposed 768 default - which is just
slightly larger than a previous 600 - should also allow having ~20
CPUs, although the systems with 20 CPUs are significantly less popular
than i.e. 16. Also, t
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:44:06PM +0300, Mike Banon wrote:
> Good day Kevin, please tell if there's anything I can add for us to
> proceed with a review of this patch.
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:54 PM Mike Banon wrote:
> >
> > According to my calculations, my proposed 768 default - which is j
Good day Kevin, please tell if there's anything I can add for us to
proceed with a review of this patch.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:54 PM Mike Banon wrote:
>
> According to my calculations, my proposed 768 default - which is just
> slightly larger than a previous 600 - should also allow having ~20
According to my calculations, my proposed 768 default - which is just
slightly larger than a previous 600 - should also allow having ~20
CPUs, although the systems with 20 CPUs are significantly less popular
than i.e. 16. Also, the uneven (unrelated to the power of 2's) values
of 600 weren't really
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 11:21:27PM +0300, Mike Banon wrote:
> There are plenty of coreboot platforms whose MPTABLE size is just
> slightly larger than the current uneven limit of 600 bytes, which
> prevents these important tables from being copied. For example, G505S
> has 628 bytes and A88XM-E has
