On 9/24/2015 11:33 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
And that's ugly - I much prefer having input arguments being input only
and return values being return values only. If it can be helped, that
is. And in this case, it is not necessary.
Okay, I'll fix this in the next version and do a family check
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:15:08AM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> I was thinking it's a little better from readability POV to separate out the
> for loop which does the job of finding the scrub value to program;
> And __set_scrub_rate() writes the value to the appropriate register.
>
> May
On 9/24/2015 4:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:53:30PM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
-static int __set_scrub_rate(struct pci_dev *ctl, u32 new_bw, u32 min_rate)
+static u32 find_scrub_rate(u32 new_bw, u32 min_rate, u32 *scrub_bw)
{
u32 scrubval;
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:53:30PM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> For F15h M60h processor, the scrub rate control register has moved
> to F2 of PCI config space and is at a different offset from
> earlier processors. The minimun recommended scrub rate is also different.
> (Refer D18F2x1c8_d
For F15h M60h processor, the scrub rate control register has moved
to F2 of PCI config space and is at a different offset from
earlier processors. The minimun recommended scrub rate is also different.
(Refer D18F2x1c8_dct[1:0][DramScrub] on Fam15hM60h BKDG)
Modify the set_scrub_rate() and get_scru
5 matches
Mail list logo
