On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:02:23PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 04/04/2011 07:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> > >> On 04/04/2011 10:59 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:27:57PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Many PCI BARs that use the memory address space map a single MMIO region > >>>> into > >>>> the entire BAR range. Introduce an API pci_register_bar_simple() for > >>>> that use > >>>> case, and convert all users where this can be done trivially. > >>>> > >>>> This will reduce the work required to introduce a PCI memory API; it's > >>>> also > >>>> a nice code reduction in its own right. > >>> > >>> This will save some code, so > >>> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<m...@redhat.com> > >>> > >>> I really hope the rest of devices will follow. > >> > >> How complete is this? > > > > I converted all devices which were easy to convert. There may be one or two > > more that can be converted with additional work (and perhaps with an > > additional pic_bar_get_current_address() API, and a pci_bar_set_coalescing() > > API). The rest likely need to stick with the callback-based API. > > In my version which I sent earlier but didn't commit, also other BARs > besides the first one and also tricky devices like VGA were handled.
Yes, I liked that patchset too. What happened to it? > But I didn't commit it because I felt it was not going to right > direction. I think the BARs should be specified in PCIDeviceInfo > instead of adding more function calls. The same applies to this patch > set. Is that really that fundamental? What I do care about is making pci.c track and register all device memory so that we can finally implement pci bridge features such as master abort handling and unmapped memory. -- MST
