lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] calgary: Increase the maximum PHB bus number
On Apr 06, 2010, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:37:50AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:03:46AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 04:59:01PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > -#define MAX_NUM_OF_PHBS 8 /* how many PHBs in total? */
> > > > -#define MAX_NUM_CHASSIS 8 /* max number of chassis */
> > > > -/* MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM is the maximal possible dev->bus->number */
> > > > -#define MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM (MAX_NUM_OF_PHBS * MAX_NUM_CHASSIS * 2)
> > > > +/*
> > > > + The maximum PHB bus number.
> > > > + x3950M2 (rare): 8 chassis, 48 PHBs per chassis = 384
> > > > + x3950M2: 4 chassis, 48 PHBs per chassis = 192
> > > > + x3950 (PCIE): 8 chassis, 32 PHBs per chassis = 256
> > > > + x3950 (PCIX): 8 chassis, 16 PHBs per chassis = 128
> > > > +*/
> > > > +#define MAX_PHB_BUS_NUM 384
> > > > +
> > > > #define PHBS_PER_CALGARY 4
> > > > > We'll end up wasting a few bytes on small systems, but I don't think
> > > it's enough to matter on these fairly large systems. As far as I'm
> > > concerned, patch is fine.
> > > > > Acked-by: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
> > > Hmm... has this patch been queued up by anyone for the .34 merge
> > window?
> Still not in 2.6.34-rc3. Are there any objections to this patch? I've not
> heard any complaints since my original posting... or did it simply
> get lost in
> the noise?

This patch still hasn't been picked up by a maintainer.

Are there any objections?

-Corinna Schultz
IBM LTC



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-25 01:55    [W:0.020 / U:0.920 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site