On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:59:53 +0200 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 15:53 +0800, Ram Pai wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 08:59:28AM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 07:25 +0800, Ram Pai wrote: > > > > > On x86, the code anyway works the way you mention. It allocates space > > > > > to the VF BARs, only if available and is non-conflicting. If it is > > > > > unable to do so, sriov_init() and its friends don't do much. > > > > > > > > They already do too much (ie changing num VF, changing page size), > > > > that's enough to break some drivers. > > > > > > num VFs are set so that VF BARs can be allocated a resource-size > > > that is a multiple of num VFs. > > > > But you can -remember- it without actually affecting config space at > > that point no ? Or do you need to whack it to know the size ? In which > > case, just like we set/reset BARs when sizing them, it might be worth > > resetting numVF in config space after the sizing until we actually need > > those VFs. > > So what's the latest on this? Do you want to solve this in PPC code or > shall we factor out the SR-IOV code a bit as well? Jesse, I have a patch towards this. It is getting tested...will send it soon. Sorry, have been snail paced on this. Thanks, RP -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
