On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 11:22, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Have pci_root_bus_internal_init() callers set the
> 'bar_at_addr_0_refused' argument. No logical change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
> ---
> hw/pci/pci.c | 11 +++++++----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
> index 27b66583e54..8eacb8f82fc 100644
> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
> @@ -529,7 +529,8 @@ static bool machine_refuses_bar_at_addr_0(void)
>
> static void pci_root_bus_internal_init(PCIBus *bus, DeviceState *parent,
> MemoryRegion *mem, MemoryRegion *io,
> - uint8_t devfn_min)
> + uint8_t devfn_min,
> + bool bar_at_addr_0_refused)
> {
> assert(PCI_FUNC(devfn_min) == 0);
> bus->devfn_min = devfn_min;
> @@ -537,7 +538,7 @@ static void pci_root_bus_internal_init(PCIBus *bus,
> DeviceState *parent,
> bus->address_space_mem = mem;
> bus->address_space_io = io;
> bus->flags |= PCI_BUS_IS_ROOT;
> - if (machine_refuses_bar_at_addr_0()) {
> + if (bar_at_addr_0_refused && machine_refuses_bar_at_addr_0()) {
Should this be || rather than && ? If I understand the
intent correctly, we want to prevent a BAR at address 0
if either:
* the MachineClass field says we don't want one
(legacy handling, eventually goes away)
* the new command line argument says we don't want one
rather than only if *both* say "no address 0" ?
thanks
-- PMM
