Received: by 2002:a25:1506:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 6csp2051233ybv; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:37:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHToWe+MjIQSDjnIcQp1a18N1Xxy+GQ7aFSpqcZX1Fhz8K9yZJ8LFMI4dTF2Tm4B3mkFRq X-Received: by 2002:aca:4f96:: with SMTP id d144mr11601444oib.172.1582522646463; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:37:26 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1582522646; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=S8XhpWgiqcRqjCCXYpb37hnmLBmLnvlziGmvi4OGOdHTks43gmIMF7GiPpaPrHNS0E 5D0Egs23vz8fnKc0UVwjwOxs+LUxtOOxJ115G8Oim0bNRsTtxVrp16d1mb/CVidRCfiJ TG0yJJ27lKISZ+LvQmjz48rNkxoexZWEVRQz0r1GxW4WROXyi96s8AyLtqzPwquTo4G0 eJop5M8/HNI5kJbc8cLSDobqID7yuHszOVfhMkedSs37ZJgvdfo3V59tm+RKZI3jqoSk 37O3DH183q0UbjorzDsHOld6YAHCKe8z/zeQmvMaHwMVYOVO4Ynbx1CQZu3EvxwiVlDW vN3g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:user-agent:organization:references:in-reply-to:date:cc :to:from:subject; bh=KIs61U+iQgd4sfsYXYthaS+ZmlbXmzdXzIi6nCYo9mM=; b=Cx57jKA6wlPb1b+RmpUFgGXnM5yT3/8Rcg77Mz4lteJr2LYp2eRQL3FBF+FBMyb5Pu HA+qCzv9MDmeUMtfIVhiplQjQUhjVOVWcFhW+DVLtjv0LlgnLdA0k3Xn8EbdSsfQ9kle WTf3vZjyOvzCboFGxDWbFsZtoYPbWubNvbOeNEqxjxawlTo38ME3IwiSrPyOBJtOxhAs rvHtnfH7tADA6JwJSLYcRFixP9b1yj7ln5KKAtLXTi5LTHmPOn9EyIPNRPq3jn+Pghxh sf2VRZbJia7y1B8CMmLeUzxNc/y+eiw0w2f+/kJ12eA5AovEC8BYLm+9p+FKKSfe8Wed 0aaA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 194si4588045oii.2.2020.02.23.21.37.13; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726536AbgBXFhD (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:37:03 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:49738 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725809AbgBXFhD (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:37:03 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01O5YbQo059499 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:37:02 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2yb1qc1fgx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:37:02 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:36:59 -0000 Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.192) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:36:52 -0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 01O5ZtQ041026038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:35:55 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EAE4C040; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:36:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3831A4C04E; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:36:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (unknown [9.192.253.14]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 05:36:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from adsilva.ozlabs.ibm.com (haven.au.ibm.com [9.192.254.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D3FDA00E5; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:36:46 +1100 (AEDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/27] ocxl: Tally up the LPC memory on a link & allow it to be mapped From: "Alastair D'Silva" To: Andrew Donnellan Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , "Oliver O'Halloran" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Frederic Barrat , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Dan Williams , Vishal Verma , Dave Jiang , Ira Weiny , Andrew Morton , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , "David S. Miller" , Rob Herring , Anton Blanchard , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Mahesh Salgaonkar , Madhavan Srinivasan , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater , Anju T Sudhakar , Hari Bathini , Thomas Gleixner , Greg Kurz , Nicholas Piggin , Masahiro Yamada , Alexey Kardashevskiy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 16:36:49 +1100 In-Reply-To: <8a6eaedd-d806-9111-84ac-c4961227d69c@linux.ibm.com> References: <20200221032720.33893-1-alastair@au1.ibm.com> <20200221032720.33893-7-alastair@au1.ibm.com> <8a6eaedd-d806-9111-84ac-c4961227d69c@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM Australia Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.3 (3.34.3-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20022405-0016-0000-0000-000002E9A6ED X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20022405-0017-0000-0000-0000334CCC78 Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.572 definitions=2020-02-24_01:2020-02-21,2020-02-24 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=953 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002240047 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > Tally up the LPC memory on an OpenCAPI link & allow it to be mapped > > > > Signed-off-by: Alastair D'Silva > > 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