On 5/12/24 17:44, Peter Maydell wrote:
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" ?
Oops :)
thanks -- PMM
