Bandan Das <b...@redhat.com> writes:
> There's no indication of any sort that i440fx doesn't support
> "iommu=on"
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Bandan Das <b...@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/pci-host/piix.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/piix.c b/hw/pci-host/piix.c
> index 7b2fbf9..715208b 100644
> --- a/hw/pci-host/piix.c
> +++ b/hw/pci-host/piix.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> #include "sysemu/sysemu.h"
> #include "hw/i386/ioapic.h"
> #include "qapi/visitor.h"
> +#include "qemu/error-report.h"
>
> /*
> * I440FX chipset data sheet.
> @@ -301,6 +302,10 @@ static void i440fx_pcihost_realize(DeviceState *dev,
> Error **errp)
> static void i440fx_realize(PCIDevice *dev, Error **errp)
> {
> dev->config[I440FX_SMRAM] = 0x02;
> +
> + if (object_property_get_bool(qdev_get_machine(), "iommu", NULL)) {
> + error_report("warning: i440fx doesn't support emulated iommu");
> + }
> }
>
> PCIBus *i440fx_init(const char *host_type, const char *pci_type,
Hmm.
If I understand things correctly, we add property "iommu" to *any*
machine, whether it supports it or not (see machine_initfn() in
hw/core/machine.c).
Most machines don't support it. You add a warning to one of them.
Why to that one and not the others?
Shouldn't we add properties only to machines where they make sense?
Adding them indiscrimiately defeats QOM introspection.
