[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181106082759.GA13712@zn.tnic>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 09:27:59 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Woods, Brian" <Brian.Woods@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Pu Wen <puwen@...on.cn>,
Jia Zhang <qianyue.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/amd_nb: add support for newer PCI topologies
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:32:16PM +0000, Woods, Brian wrote:
> Your understanding is correct. It's more so that the following DF/SMN
> interface gets mapped correctly.
> /*
> * If there are more PCI root devices than data fabric/
> * system management network interfaces, then the (N)
> * PCI roots per DF/SMN interface are functionally the
> * same (for DF/SMN access) and N-1 are redundant. N-1
> * PCI roots should be skipped per DF/SMN interface so
> * the following DF/SMN interfaces get mapped to
> * correct PCI roots.
> */
> Does that read clearer?
Yap, thanks!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists