RE: #define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256

RE: #define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256

[Brown, Len]

Okay to reduce ACPI_MAX_TABLES to 64 from 256 for the forseeable future?

also, looks like acpi_sdt_entry[] can be __init since it is referenced
only by code that is __init.

thanks,
-Len
http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1311 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:bjorn.helgaas-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org] 
>Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:35 PM
>To: Brown, Len; Jesse Barnes; Grover, Andrew; Bjorn Helgaas; 
>Moore, Robert
>Cc: acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>Subject: Re: #define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256
>
>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
>
>


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/

Re: #define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256

[Jesse Barnes]

On Sunday, December 5, 2004 6:37 pm, Brown, Len wrote:
> Okay to reduce ACPI_MAX_TABLES to 64 from 256 for the forseeable future?
>
> also, looks like acpi_sdt_entry[] can be __init since it is referenced
> only by code that is __init.

Both are fine by me.

Thanks,
Jesse


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/

Re: RE: #define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Sunday 05 December 2004 7:37 pm, Brown, Len wrote:
> Okay to reduce ACPI_MAX_TABLES to 64 from 256 for the forseeable future?

Sounds OK to me.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/

#define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256

[Brown, Len]

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.
 
Thanks,
-Len


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf

Re: #define ACPI_MAX_TABLES 256

[Bjorn Helgaas]

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