[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+sq2Cf=3-WUaT+iNefYswgGf2ejW6EQp1igcMWELU=-xUnnNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:13:45 +0530
From: Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>
To: Satha Koteswara Rao <satha.rao@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...ium.com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
rvatsavayi@...iumnetworks.com, derek.chickles@...iumnetworks.com,
philip.romanov@...ium.com,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] Multiple VF's grouped together under single
physical port called PF group PF Group maintainance API's
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Satha Koteswara Rao
<satha.rao@...iumnetworks.com> wrote:
> +struct tns_global_st {
> + u64 magic;
> + char version[16];
> + u64 reg_cnt;
> + struct table_static_s tbl_info[TNS_MAX_TABLE];
> +};
> +
> +#define PF_COUNT 3
> +#define PF_1 0
> +#define PF_2 64
> +#define PF_3 96
> +#define PF_END 128
Some comments please ... what is 0, 64, 96 ??
You can read PCI_SRIOV_TOTAL_VF from PCI config space instead of
defining PF_END with 128.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists