On 10/05/22 07:01, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 05:57:46PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 10/04/22 15:47, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>> In case the 64-bit pci mmio window is larger than the default size >>> of 32G be generous and hand out larger chunks of address space for >>> prefetchable mmio bridge windows. > >>> + SetMmioPadding ( >>> + --FirstResource, >>> + TRUE, >>> + FALSE, >>> + (UINTN)HighBitSetRoundUp64 (RShiftU64 (Pci64Size, 8)) >>> + ); > >> Looks good to me, thanks; I'm just missing the rationale on the >> RShiftU64() call. Please elaborate. > > Cover letter explains this a bit. The idea is to scale things up with > the available address space. Patch #3 does that for the 64-bit pci mmio > window. This patch does the same for the bridge windows, leveraging the > patch #3 calculations by looking at PcdPciMmio64Size. The shift by 8 > assigns 1/256 of the total mmio window size to each bridge. > > The '8' is just pulled out of thin air. Looks reasonable to me, in case > it turns out it is not we can adjust that in the future.
OK, starting with a 64GB aperture size, 256MB will be reserved per port / bridge. For this patch: Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> Laszlo -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#94784): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/94784 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/94113630/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
