On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:44:06PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > + u8 shpc_cap = pci_find_capability(s->bus_dev, PCI_CAP_ID_SHPC);
>
> > One thing I'd do is maybe check that the relevant memory type is
> > enabled in the bridge (probably just by writing fff to base and reading
> > it back).
>
> > This will give hypervisors an option to avoid wasting resources:
> > e.g. it's uncommon for express devices to claim IO.
>
> I don't think we'll need that for the SHPC bridge.
Why not?
I'm referring to this text in the bridge specification:
The I/O Base and I/O Limit registers are optional and define an address
range that is used
by the bridge to determine when to forward I/O transactions from one
interface to the
other.
If a bridge does not implement an I/O address range, then both the I/O
Base and I/O
Limit registers must be implemented as read-only registers that return
zero when read. If a
bridge supports an I/O address range, then these registers must be
initialized by
configuration software so default states are not specified.
So we should probe bridge for I/O support before wasting I/O resources on it.
The spec does not provide a way to detect this, but we can do it like this:
- write value ffffffff to I/O base register
- read back value
value 0 means bridge does not support I/O.
A similar trick should work for other optional resources.
> For express it indeed makes sense to avoid claiming IO address space.
> I'd try to find something more automatic though, where you don't need
> some kind of "disable io for this express port" config option.
Won't same trick as above work?
> For express ports which can only have a single device underneath we can
> check whenever we have a device and if one is present already don't
> bother claiming extra resources for hotplug.
>
> > > + for (cap = pci_config_readb(pci->bdf, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST); cap;
> > > + cap = pci_config_readb(pci->bdf, cap +
> > > PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT))
> > > + if (pci_config_readb(pci->bdf, cap + PCI_CAP_LIST_ID) == cap_id)
> > > + return cap;
> >
> > I would also limit this to 256 iterations, to make sure
> > we dont' get into an infinite loop with a broken device.
>
> Good point.
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
>
