On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 14:24 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-10-25 13:36, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2014-10-21 00:34, Knut Omang wrote:
> >> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci_bridge.c b/hw/pci/pci_bridge.c
> >> index 40c97b1..e6832c4 100644
> >> --- a/hw/pci/pci_bridge.c
> >> +++ b/hw/pci/pci_bridge.c
> >> @@ -376,8 +376,14 @@ int pci_bridge_initfn(PCIDevice *dev, const char
> >> *typename)
> >> sec_bus->address_space_io = &br->address_space_io;
> >> memory_region_init(&br->address_space_io, OBJECT(br),
> >> "pci_bridge_io", 65536);
> >> br->windows = pci_bridge_region_init(br);
> >> +
> >> QLIST_INIT(&sec_bus->child);
> >> QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&parent->child, sec_bus, sibling);
> >> +
> >> + if (dev->bus->iommu_opaque) {
> >> + pci_setup_iommu(sec_bus, dev->bus->iommu_fn,
> >> dev->bus->iommu_opaque);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > So, if I followed the discussion in the cover-letter thread correctly,
> > this should rather move into the bridge device init functions because
> > the PCI[e]-PCI bridge ("pci-bridge") would not call it, right?
>
> Not right. We need the setup in any case (except for the virtio bridges
> I'm currently thinking of for encapsulating non-translatable virtio
> devices). But something still has to change to reflect the requester ID
> aliasing of the PCIe-PCI bridge, no?
Yes, that's my understanding too.
Knut
