On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:05:26PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> ISA 3.0 document hash table size in bytes = 2^(HTABSIZE + 18)
>
> No functionality change by this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c | 9 ++++-----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
> index b90fe2480089..47d59a1f12f1 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/hash_utils_64.c
> @@ -714,10 +714,9 @@ int remove_section_mapping(unsigned long start, unsigned
> long end)
> #endif /* CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG */
>
> static void __init hash_init_partition_table(phys_addr_t hash_table,
> - unsigned long pteg_count)
> + unsigned long htab_size)
> {
> unsigned long ps_field;
> - unsigned long htab_size;
> unsigned long patb_size = 1UL << PATB_SIZE_SHIFT;
>
> /*
> @@ -725,7 +724,7 @@ static void __init hash_init_partition_table(phys_addr_t
> hash_table,
> * We can ignore that for lpid 0
> */
> ps_field = 0;
> - htab_size = __ilog2(pteg_count) - 11;
> + htab_size = __ilog2(htab_size) - 18;
I was wondering if we should just do
#define HPT_MIN_SIZE_SHIFT 18
and then use it instead?
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
