[...]
>> [Patch 5]
>> Track-alignment-explicitly
>> Almost the same as the previous, just changed priority from r->align to
>> r->sum when setting start address of root regions.
>>
>> I guess there are more chances to fit memory regions if we try place regions
>> with higher r->sum like it was b
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:00:41PM +1200, Alexey Korolev wrote:
> Here is the whole series of patches including 64bit support.
Thanks.
[...]
> [Patch 5]
> Track-alignment-explicitly
> Almost the same as the previous, just changed priority from r->align to
> r->sum when setting start address of r
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:28:02PM +1200, Alexey Korolev wrote:
> On 12/04/12 15:15, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > This was also me playing with one of Gerd's patches. It just makes
> > the bar read/write code 64bit aware. It doesn't actually program
> > them. The logic to do real 64bit allocati
On 12/04/12 15:15, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
>
> This was also me playing with one of Gerd's patches. It just makes
> the bar read/write code 64bit aware. It doesn't actually program
> them. The logic to do real 64bit allocations would require list
> merging. Is this something you have looked at?
R
On 04/04/12 15:31, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> Agreed - the only thing it does is force a minimum size for memory bars as
> you pointed out in a previous email. As above, I did play with
> this a little more on Sunday. I also added in two patches from Gerd's series
> and made alignment handling more
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:44:54PM +1200, Alexey Korolev wrote:
> On 04/04/12 15:31, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> > Agreed - the only thing it does is force a minimum size for memory bars as
> > you pointed out in a previous email. As above, I did play with
> > this a little more on Sunday. I also adde
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 06:39:22PM +1200, Alexey Korolev wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thank you for the patches!
> I've created a diff of final version of your changes over mine, to make it
> clear what has changed.
>
> Rather than including the complete diff, I've just left relevant parts and
> adde
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for the patches!
I've created a diff of final version of your changes over mine, to make it
clear what has changed.
Rather than including the complete diff, I've just left relevant parts and
added comments.
--- a/src/pciinit.c +++ b/src/pciinit.c@@ -12,8 +12,9 @@
@
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 03:28:34AM -0400, Kevin O'Connor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:54:10PM +1300, Alexey Korolev wrote:
> > In this patch instead of array based resource allocation approach
> > we calculate resource addresses linked lists of pci_region_entry structures.
>
> Thanks. I st
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:54:10PM +1300, Alexey Korolev wrote:
> In this patch instead of array based resource allocation approach
> we calculate resource addresses linked lists of pci_region_entry structures.
Thanks. I still think this migration can be done more seamlessly. I
played with your
In this patch instead of array based resource allocation approach
we calculate resource addresses linked lists of pci_region_entry structures.
Signed-off-by: Alexey Korolev
---
src/pciinit.c | 179 -
1 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 129
11 matches
Mail list logo
