Fwd: [PATCH v4 11/18] cxl: Separate bare-metal fields in adapter and AFU data structures

[Frederic Barrat]

Manoj,

Point taken. Those constants are all defined in the architecture 
document (CAIA). We should probably use more macros there.
However, since those were not introduced by this patch, I'll put it in 
my todo list for the future, but don't intend to address it in this 
patchset.

   Fred

Le 22/02/2016 02:14, Manoj Kumar a écrit :
> Christophe, Fred: Perhaps none of these comments below are specific
> to your patch, but clarification would help the next reviewer.
>
> --
> Manoj Kumar
>
>> Subject: [PATCH v4 11/18] cxl: Separate bare-metal fields in adapter and
>
>>
>> -    WARN_ON(afu->spa_size > 0x100000); /* Max size supported by the
>> hardware */
>> +    WARN_ON(afu->native->spa_size > 0x100000); /* Max size supported by
>> the hardware */
>
> Would prefer to see a MACRO defined, instead of the literal 0x1000000
>
>
>>
>>       cxl_p1_write(adapter, CXL_PSL_ErrIVTE, 0x0000000000000000);
>
> Same as above.
>
>
>>       p1n_base = p1_base(dev) + 0x10000 + (afu->slice * p1n_size);
>
> Same as above.
>
>>
>> @@ -621,7 +622,7 @@ static int cxl_read_afu_descriptor(struct cxl_afu
>> *afu)
>>       afu->pp_size = AFUD_PPPSA_LEN(val) * 4096;
>
> Both val and pp_size are 64bit quantities. Not clear how the overflow
> during multiplication is going to be handled.
>
>
>>       afu->crs_len = AFUD_CR_LEN(val) * 256;
>
> What do the 4096 and 256 represent?
>
>
>>       /* Convert everything to bytes, because there is NO WAY I'd look
>> at the
>>        * code a month later and forget what units these are in ;-) */
>> -    adapter->ps_off = ps_off * 64 * 1024;
>> +    adapter->native->ps_off = ps_off * 64 * 1024;
>>       adapter->ps_size = ps_size * 64 * 1024;
>> -    adapter->afu_desc_off = afu_desc_off * 64 * 1024;
>> -    adapter->afu_desc_size = afu_desc_size *64 * 1024;
>> +    adapter->native->afu_desc_off = afu_desc_off * 64 * 1024;
>> +    adapter->native->afu_desc_size = afu_desc_size * 64 * 1024;
>
> Is this (64k) page size related?
>
>