On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 12:05:08AM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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? > > Nothing, but I thought that there could be a "perfect" solution. > > I like in Avi's version that unnecessary API changes are avoided.
Yes, it's nice that it's incremental. > >> 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. > > The structure version can be done later. Right, pci.c should manage > the device mappings. OK, so applying Avi's patchset and building on that is your preferred approach too? -- MST
