Searched refs:total_VFs (Results 1 – 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
62 for (nr_virtfn = iov->total_VFs; nr_virtfn; nr_virtfn--) { in compute_max_vf_buses()479 if (initial > iov->total_VFs || in sriov_enable()480 (!(iov->cap & PCI_SRIOV_CAP_VFM) && (initial != iov->total_VFs))) in sriov_enable()483 if (nr_virtfn < 0 || nr_virtfn > iov->total_VFs || in sriov_enable()677 iov->total_VFs = total; in sriov_init()794 iov->driver_max_VFs = iov->total_VFs; in pci_iov_remove()1028 if (numvfs > dev->sriov->total_VFs) in pci_sriov_set_totalvfs()
328 u16 total_VFs; /* Total VFs associated with the PF */ member
229 But doing so introduces another problem: total_VFs is usually smaller235 total_VFs is less than 256, we have the situation in Figure 1.0, where236 segments [total_VFs, 255] of the M64 window may map to some MMIO range on239 0 1 total_VFs - 1246 0 1 total_VFs - 1 255258 0 1 total_VFs - 1 255265 0 1 total_VFs - 1 255277 reserved in software; there are still only total_VFs VFs, and they only278 respond to segments [0, total_VFs - 1]. There's nothing in hardware that279 responds to segments [total_VFs, 255].