On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 08:50, Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 03:08:50AM +0000, Ni, Ray wrote: > > Ard, > > can you explain more? > > > > Your code changes the PciHostBridge driver to ignore the failure of IO > > allocation. > > If IO requirement of certain PCI(E) devices can be ignored, can you change > > the IncompatiblePciDevice protocol implementation to override the IO > > request from the devices? > > Hmm, it's a problem indeed, device initialization fails in case an > io bar is present even if the bar is not required to drive the device. >
I'd say the risk for regressions is rather low, though, given that it only affects configurations that would fail PCI resource allocation today. Or am I missing something? In any case, the PCIe spec is clear about this: I/O space is optional, and we need to incorporate this into the generic code at *some* point. It makes no sense for every individual platform to keep adding these hacks. > Suggestions how to deal with this best? ovmf has it's own > IncompatiblePciDevice Protocol implementation, so I could > handle it there because only OvmfPkg/Microvm needs this. > > Or should the MdeModulePkg version be updated too? > I'd say we do both, to avoid stalling your series forever :-) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#89388): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/89388 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/90623478/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
