From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0CF1A00A5 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:58:50 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:58:46 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8185019D806B for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:46:41 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u1PGwi4a31719668 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:58:44 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u1PGwhR0011266 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:58:44 -0700 Reply-To: manoj@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/18] cxl: Support to flash a new image on the adapter from a guest 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> <56CEFD7D.6010005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Frederic Barrat , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org From: Manoj Kumar Message-ID: <56CF32DA.2060806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:59:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56CEFD7D.6010005@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: , Fred: Comments below. On 2/25/2016 7:11 AM, Frederic Barrat wrote: > > > 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). Since it was a carryover from existing code, it is fine to address later. >> memset(0) after kzalloc() is redundant. > > yep! Will fix. If this is resolved in v6, you may add Reviewed-by: Manoj Kumar --- Manoj Kumar