From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4218A1A0342 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:11:35 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:11:32 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2160417D8066 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:11:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.217]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u1PDBQvI47710250 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:11:27 GMT Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u1PDBQJm012837 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:11:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/18] cxl: Support to flash a new image on the adapter from a guest To: manoj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <1456244519-18934-1-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1456244519-18934-15-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56CE0C7E.7090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Frederic Barrat Message-ID: <56CEFD7D.6010005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:11:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56CE0C7E.7090001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Le 24/02/2016 21:03, Manoj Kumar a écrit : >> From: Christophe Lombard >> >> +#define CXL_DEV_MINORS 13 /* 1 control + 4 AFUs * 3 >> (dedicated/master/shared) */ > > Where does this limit of 4 AFUs come from? > Is this related to CXL_MAX_SLICES? > Should this be a computed value, in case the number of AFUs/slices > is increased at a future date? The architecture document (CAIA) limits the number of AFUs to 4, though I don't think anybody as tried with more than 1 so far. So yes, we could have reused CXL_MAX_SLICES. Since we were just moving the definition from another file and this is not likely to vary until a major revision of the architecture, I don't intend to address it in this patchset, but I've added it to my list of ideas for future cleanup (you had already mentioned something about hard-coded constants in the previous series). > memset(0) after kzalloc() is redundant. yep! Will fix. Fred