On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 16:25 +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 21/2/20 2:26 pm, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > > From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Tally up the LPC memory on an OpenCAPI link & allow it to be mapped > > > > Signed-off-by: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > This commit message is a bit short and could do with some further > explanation. > > In particular - it's worth explaining why the tracking of available > LPC > memory needs to be done at a link level, because a single OpenCAPI > card > can have multiple PCI functions, each with multiple AFUs which define > an > amount of LPC memory they have, even if the common case is expected > to > be a single function with a single AFU and thus one LPC area per > link. Ok > > Snowpatch has a few checkpatch issues to report: > > https://openpower.xyz/job/snowpatch/job/snowpatch-linux-checkpatch/11800//artifact/linux/checkpatch.log > Gah, I could have sworn I ran checkpatch against this :/ > The code generally looks okay to me. > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h > > b/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h > > index 198e4e4bc51d..d0c8c4838f42 100644 > > --- a/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h > > +++ b/drivers/misc/ocxl/ocxl_internal.h > > @@ -142,4 +142,37 @@ int ocxl_irq_offset_to_id(struct ocxl_context > > *ctx, u64 offset); > > u64 ocxl_irq_id_to_offset(struct ocxl_context *ctx, int irq_id); > > void ocxl_afu_irq_free_all(struct ocxl_context *ctx); > > > > +/** > > + * ocxl_link_add_lpc_mem() - Increment the amount of memory > > required by an OpenCAPI link > > + * > > + * @link_handle: The OpenCAPI link handle > > + * @offset: The offset of the memory to add > > + * @size: The amount of memory to increment by > > + * > > + * Returns 0 on success, negative on overflow > > + */ > > I think "amount of memory required" isn't the best way to express > this. > > Might as well explicitly say -EINVAL on overflow. > Ok -- Alastair D'Silva Open Source Developer Linux Technology Centre, IBM Australia mob: 0423 762 819
