I am trying to create a pcie x4 interface using a standard SERDES map on a Marvell 38x chip in Uboot. However lane verification prevents me from enabling the pcie x4 configuration.
The closest example I can find is this slm1363 board from this file: https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/3d4825446e4258192e1f2302d691a8c0c82a0975/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/serdes/a38x/high_speed_topology_spec-38x.c :
struct serdes_map db_config_slm1363_d[MAX_SERDES_LANES] = {
{PEX0, SERDES_SPEED_5_GBPS, PEX_ROOT_COMPLEX_X4, 0, 0},
{PEX1, SERDES_SPEED_5_GBPS, PEX_ROOT_COMPLEX_X4, 0, 0},
{PEX2, SERDES_SPEED_5_GBPS, PEX_ROOT_COMPLEX_X4, 0, 0},
{PEX3, SERDES_SPEED_5_GBPS, PEX_ROOT_COMPLEX_X4, 0, 0},
{USB3_HOST0, SERDES_SPEED_5_GBPS, SERDES_DEFAULT_MODE, 0, 0},
{USB3_HOST1, SERDES_SPEED_5_GBPS, SERDES_DEFAULT_MODE, 0, 0}
}
However that board was patched out in this commit https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/commit/544acb07ecebc096c9449e675481ba280311fb0b due to it being an unsupported topology?
If I configure uboot using the example above, I get the following on boot:
board SerDes lanes topology details:
| Lane # | Speed | Type |
--------------------------------
| 0 | 5 | PCIe0 |
| 1 | 5 | PCIe1 |
| 2 | 5 | PCIe2 |
| 3 | 5 | PCIe3 |
| 4 | 5 | USB3 HOST0 |
| 5 | 5 | USB3 HOST1 |
--------------------------------
hws_serdes_topology_verify: Warning: serdes lane 2 is set to type PCIe2.
hws_serdes_topology_verify: Maximum supported lanes are already set to this type (limit = 4)
hws_update_serdes_phy_selectors: SerDes lane #2 is disabled
hws_serdes_topology_verify: Warning: serdes lane 3 is set to type PCIe3.
hws_serdes_topology_verify: Maximum supported lanes are already set to this type (limit = 4)
hws_update_serdes_phy_selectors: SerDes lane #3 is disabled
board SerDes lanes topology details:
| Lane # | Speed | Type |
--------------------------------
| 0 | 5 | PCIe0 |
| 1 | 5 | PCIe1 |
| 4 | 5 | USB3 HOST0 |
| 5 | 5 | USB3 HOST1 |
--------------------------------
If i comment out the SERDES lane verification, it seems I can configure the x4 link successfully and recognize the drive that is attached. Can anyone shed some light on the proper way to configure this?
Thanks!
Tyler
Related
In vertica, Is there any way to access admintools without admin rights?. How to find nodes and cluster configure details in normal user in vertica?
You might have already tried it.
You must have access to the Linux shell level on one of the Vertica nodes, as a user that is allowed to write to /opt/vertica/log/adminTools.log . And that is, by default, dbadmin.
I would regard it as quite a security risk to tamper with the permissions around that, really.
A good start would be:
$ vsql -U <user> -w <pwd> -h 127.127.127.128 -d dbnm -x -c "select * from host_resources"
-[ RECORD 1 ]------------------+-----------------------------------------
host_name | 127.127.127.128
open_files_limit | 65536
threads_limit | 7873
core_file_limit_max_size_bytes | 0
processor_count | 1
processor_core_count | 2
processor_description | Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 0 # 2.60GHz
opened_file_count | 7
opened_socket_count | 10
opened_nonfile_nonsocket_count | 7
total_memory_bytes | 8254820352
total_memory_free_bytes | 1034915840
total_buffer_memory_bytes | 523386880
total_memory_cache_bytes | 5516861440
total_swap_memory_bytes | 2097147904
total_swap_memory_free_bytes | 2097147904
disk_space_free_mb | 425185
disk_space_used_mb | 76682
disk_space_total_mb | 501867
system_open_files | 1440
system_max_files | 798044
-[ RECORD 2 ]------------------+-----------------------------------------
host_name | 127.127.127.129
open_files_limit | 65536
threads_limit | 7873
core_file_limit_max_size_bytes | 0
processor_count | 1
processor_core_count | 2
processor_description | Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 0 # 2.60GHz
opened_file_count | 7
opened_socket_count | 9
opened_nonfile_nonsocket_count | 7
total_memory_bytes | 8254820352
total_memory_free_bytes | 1836150784
total_buffer_memory_bytes | 487129088
total_memory_cache_bytes | 4774060032
total_swap_memory_bytes | 2097147904
total_swap_memory_free_bytes | 2097147904
disk_space_free_mb | 447084
disk_space_used_mb | 54783
disk_space_total_mb | 501867
system_open_files | 1408
system_max_files | 798044
-[ RECORD 3 ]------------------+-----------------------------------------
host_name | 127.127.127.130
open_files_limit | 65536
threads_limit | 7873
core_file_limit_max_size_bytes | 0
processor_count | 1
processor_core_count | 2
processor_description | Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 0 # 2.60GHz
opened_file_count | 7
opened_socket_count | 9
opened_nonfile_nonsocket_count | 7
total_memory_bytes | 8254820352
total_memory_free_bytes | 1747091456
total_buffer_memory_bytes | 531447808
total_memory_cache_bytes | 4813959168
total_swap_memory_bytes | 2097147904
total_swap_memory_free_bytes | 2097147904
disk_space_free_mb | 451444
disk_space_used_mb | 50423
disk_space_total_mb | 501867
system_open_files | 1408
system_max_files | 798044
In general, check the Vertica docu for system tables and information available there....
I have a concern about data organisation and the best approach to simplify some multi-layered data. Simply, I have a 10 replicates of small wood beams (BeamID, ~10) subjected to a 10 different treatment (TreatID, ~10), and each beam is load tested which produces a series data of a Load with consequent Displacement (ranging from 10 to 50 rows per test; I have code that corrects for disparities in row length). Each wood beam is tested multiple times (Rep, ~10).
My plan was to lump all this data into a 5-D array:
Array[Load, Deflection, BeamID, TreatID, Rep]
This way, I should be able to plot the load~deflection curves for a given BeamID, TreatID, for all Reps by using Array[ , ,1,1, ], right? So the hypothetical output for Array[ , ,1,1,1], would be:
+------------+--------+-----+
| Deflection | Load | Rep |
+------------+--------+-----+
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 6.35 | 10.5 | 1 |
| 12.7 | 20.8 | 1 |
| 19.05 | 45.3 | 1 |
| 25.4 | 75.2 | 1 |
+------------+--------+-----+
And Array[ , ,1,1,2] would be:
+------------+--------+-----+
| Deflection | Load | Rep |
+------------+--------+-----+
| 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 7.3025 | 12.075 | 2 |
| 14.605 | 23.92 | 2 |
| 21.9075 | 52.095 | 2 |
| 29.21 | 86.48 | 2 |
+------------+--------+-----+
Or I think I could keep it as a simpler, 'melted' dataframe, which would have columns for Load and Deflection, and BeamID, TreatID, and Rep would be repeated for each row of the test output.
+------------+--------+-----+--------+---------+
| Deflection | Load | Rep | BeamID | TreatID |
+------------+--------+-----+--------+---------+
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6.35 | 10.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12.7 | 20.8 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 19.05 | 45.3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 25.4 | 75.2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 7.3025 | 12.075 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 14.605 | 23.92 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 21.9075 | 52.095 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 29.21 | 86.48 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
+------------+--------+-----+--------+---------+
However, with the latter, I'm not sure how I could easily and discretely pull out all the Rep test values for a specific BeamID and TreatID, especially since I use a linear model to fit a 3rd order polynomial for an specific test to extract the slope of the curves. Having it as a continuous dataframe means I'd have to specify starting and stopping points to start the linear model, correct?
Thoughts, suggestions? Am I headed in the right direction in using a 5-D array? R is a new programming language for me, so please pardon my misunderstandings.
There is a really good explanation of multi-dimensional array here on stackoverflow which I have studied and researched but i have few follow up questions for anyone who wants to help out. This is not a HW question, it is out of my text book which I am trying to understand more so please confirm if I am looking at the below example correctly. Thank you in advance.
So if i had a 3 dimensional array such as this:
{{{'1','2'},{'3','4'}},
{{'5','6'},{'7','8'}},
{{'9','10'},{'11','12'}}};
Would the one dimensional outcome (using c compiler) simply be?:
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
And the corresponding position as?
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Again I am using this link as my source.
The only thing I am looking for as a form of answer is, am I looking/doing this correctly? If not, I would appreciate it if you can tell me where I have made any mistakes. Thank you again.
1.
char [3][2][2] :
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
|+-----+-----+ |+-----+-----+
|| 1 | 3 | || 4 | 5 |
||1,0+-----+-----+ || +-----+-----+
|+---| a | b | |+---| 0 | 1 |
|| 2|0,0,0|0,0,1| || 6| | |
+|1,1+-----+-----+ => +| +-----+-----+
+---| x | y | +---| 2 | 3 |
|0,1,0|0,1,1| | | |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
so your outcome seems ok, and thus (2.) t3[0] should be a.
2.
if t2 looks like this, t2[0][1] is b:
+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+
| a | b | x | y | | | | | |
|0,0,0|0,0,1|0,1,0|0,1,1| | 0,0 | 0,1 | 0,2 | 0,3 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | => | | | | |
|1,0,0|1,0,1|1,1,0|1,1,1| | 1,0 | 1,1 | 1,2 | 1,3 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+
| q | g | r | 4 | | | | | |
|2,0,0|2,0,1|2,1,0|2,1,1| | 2,0 | 2,1 | 2,2 | 2,3 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+-----+-----+
As long you are converting them the right way(as it seems according to the link) it should work...
For conceptual understanding this is a good starting point.
But you should understand the difference between row vs column major. And technically it could vary between compilers and languages depending upon what they are designed for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row-major_order
I have "components" which can be assembled in different ways into a "system". I want my database to hold all these "components", their type specific data and define how they are connected to each other to form a "system".
The systems are typically gearboxes and they can have rather complex branched designs. Let's start with an easy example:
This system is built up out of Masses (horizontal lines) and Stiffnesses (vertical lines). Gears and clutches are types of masses and come in pairs. Colors represent different branch speeds due to gear ratios. Here's a (bad) example of how I could store everything from this particular illustration:
ID | Type | Clutch | Ends | DrivenBy | NoOfTeeth| Mass | Stiffness
--- | ---- | ------ | ---- | --------- | -------- | ---- | ---------
1 | Mass | | Input1 | | | 5 |
2 | Stiffness | | | | | | 15
3 | Mass | 1.1 | | | | 2 |
4 | Mass | 1.2 | | | | 3 |
5 | Stiffness | | | | | | 20
6 | Gear | | | | 10 | 4 |
7 | Stiffness | | | | | | 30
8 | Gear | | | | 4 | 5 |
9 | Gear | | | 8 | 7 | 2 |
10 | Stiffness | | | | | | 40
11 | Mass | | | | | 4 |
12 | Stiffness | | Output1 | | | | 10
13 | Gear | | | 6 | 5 | 4 |
14 | Stiffness | | | | | | 20
15 | Mass | 2.1 | | | | 4 |
16 | Mass | 2.2 | | | | 3
17 | Stiffness | | | | | | 30
18 | Mass | | Output2 | | | 2 |
Obviously, this is not a very good way to store the data. This design pattern resembles somewhat of a "Repeated attributes" since each component type has a different attribute to be filled. I could create a table for each type of component, but things become more complex when looking at other examples, such as this 2-stage gearbox:
There are also examples with more than 1 input and several outputs, but I can't post more links due to low reputation.
Eitherway, you will see that the usual hierarchical data storage doesn't apply here because the data is not purely "tree-shaped" where everything branches off from 1 main branch.
I think that even though I could store data in the above mentioned way, I will get huge difficulties when it comes to the programming stage.
To add to the complexity, these gearboxes are actually sub-systems to a much bigger system.
So, any suggestions on a good way to store this type of data?*
Perhaps this is a possible way of doing it?
Here you will see that there is a "main" table called GearboxBranch, keeping track of all elements in the gearbox, giving them an id and to identify in which branch the element exists.
Then for the elements themselves, masses are defined in their dedicated table, so are stiffnesses. Gears and Clutches (which are types of masses) are then defined in their perspective tables. A recursive relationship is existing in the gear table, since one gear has to be driven by at least one other gear.
Furthermore, the table with Shaft Ends defines which of the elements in the gearbox are input or output and what number they have.
I can't seem to see any problems with this method, but I'm a little unsure how to get data out of the database. There will be considerable coding involved I'm afraid.
I have a table in Access database as below;
Name | Range | X | Y | Z
------------------------------
A | 100-200 | 1 | 2 | 3
A | 200-300 | 4 | 5 | 6
B | 100-200 | 10 | 11 | 12
B | 200-300 | 13 | 14 | 15
C | 200-300 | 16 | 17 | 18
C | 300-400 | 19 | 20 | 21
I have trying write a query that convert this into the following format.
Name | X_100_200 | Y_100_200 | Z_100_200 | X_200_300 | Y_200_300 | Z_200_300 | X_300_400 | Y_300_400 | Z_300_400
A | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | | |
B | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | | |
C | | | | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21
After trying for a while the best method I could come-up with is to write bunch of short queries that selects the data for each Range and then put them together again using a Union query. The problem is that for this example I have shown 3 columns (X, Y and Z), but I actually have much more. Access is starting to strain with the amount of SQL I have come up with.
Is there a better way to achieve this?
The answer was simple. Just use Access Pivotview. Finding it hard to export the results to Excel though.