From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-sn1nam02on0051.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.36.51]:4416 "EHLO NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725774AbeKFIyc (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2018 03:54:32 -0500 From: "Woods, Brian" To: Borislav Petkov CC: "Woods, Brian" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , Clemens Ladisch , Jean Delvare , Guenter Roeck , Bjorn Helgaas , Pu Wen , Jia Zhang , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/amd_nb: add support for newer PCI topologies Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 23:32:16 +0000 Message-ID: <20181105233212.GC27399@amd.com> References: <20181102181055.130531-1-brian.woods@amd.com> <20181102181055.130531-3-brian.woods@amd.com> <20181105193840.GA26868@zn.tnic> <20181105203330.GB27399@amd.com> <20181105214233.GF26868@zn.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20181105214233.GF26868@zn.tnic> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7E504987A545264D9697EBF47F59C3D9@namprd12.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-hwmon-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 10:42:33PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Yes please. Because this is the usual kernel coding style of calling a > function (or a loop which has some result in this case) and testing that > result immediately after the function call. Done. > You say "correct" as there is a special one. But the text before it says > they're "functionally the same" wrt DF/SMN access so it sounds to me > like we wanna map the first one we find and ignore the others. >=20 > I.e., we wanna say >=20 > "... so the DF/SMN interfaces get mapped to the *first* PCI root and the > others N-1 ignored." >=20 > Or am I misreading this? >=20 > Thx. >=20 > --=20 > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. >=20 > Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. Your understanding is correct. It's more so that the following DF/SMN interface gets mapped correctly. /* * If there are more PCI root devices than data fabric/ * system management network interfaces, then the (N) * PCI roots per DF/SMN interface are functionally the * same (for DF/SMN access) and N-1 are redundant. N-1 * PCI roots should be skipped per DF/SMN interface so * the following DF/SMN interfaces get mapped to * correct PCI roots. */ Does that read clearer? --=20 Brian Woods