From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: #define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:34:33 -0600 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <200310061534.33430.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Brown, Len" , Jesse Barnes , "Grover, Andrew" , Bjorn Helgaas , "Moore, Robert" Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Friday 03 October 2003 11:56 am, Brown, Len wrote: > Anybody know where the value 256 came from? > (looks like we used to define ACPI_MAX_TABLES as ACPI_TABLE_COUNT about > a year ago) > > We use ACPI_MAX_TABLES to limit how many RSDT or XSDT entries we look > at, but I didn't see any limit in the spec, so I was wondering if this > came from some practical experience. 256 was just picked out of the blue. It was previously about 17, and we overflowed that with an HP box that was about half the size of the current largest box. So the minimum to support a fully configured box would have been around 35. Bjorn g ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf