On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 21:31:37 +0000
Wei Yang <richard.weiy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 05:09:43PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:33:59 +0000
> >Wei Yang <richard.weiy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 01:23:00PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:42:53 +0800
> >> >Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Now we have two identical build_mcfg function.
> >> >>
> >> >> Extract them to aml-build.c.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> hw/acpi/aml-build.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 16 ----------------
> >> >> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 31 +------------------------------
> >> >> include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h | 1 +
> >> >> 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> >> >> index 555c24f21d..58d3b8f31d 100644
> >> >> --- a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> >> >> +++ b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> >> >
> >> >I don't like polluting aml-build.c with PCI stuff,
> >> >we have a lot of PCI related code that needs generalizing
> >> >lets create a new file for that, something like
> >> >hw/acpi/pci.c + include/hw/acpi/pci.h
> >> >
> >> >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >> >> #include "qemu/bswap.h"
> >> >> #include "qemu/bitops.h"
> >> >> #include "sysemu/numa.h"
> >> >> +#include "hw/pci/pcie_host.h"
> >> >>
> >> >> static GArray *build_alloc_array(void)
> >> >> {
> >> >> @@ -1870,3 +1871,32 @@ build_hdr:
> >> >> build_header(linker, tbl, (void *)(tbl->data + fadt_start),
> >> >> "FACP", tbl->len - fadt_start, f->rev, oem_id,
> >> >> oem_table_id);
> >> >> }
> >> >> +
> >> >> +void build_mcfg(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, AcpiMcfgInfo
> >> >> *info)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + AcpiTableMcfg *mcfg;
> >> >> + const char *sig;
> >> >> + int len = sizeof(*mcfg) + sizeof(mcfg->allocation[0]);
> >> >> +
> >> >> + mcfg = acpi_data_push(table_data, len);
> >> >> + mcfg->allocation[0].address = cpu_to_le64(info->mcfg_base);
> >> >> + /* Only a single allocation so no need to play with segments */
> >> >> + mcfg->allocation[0].pci_segment = cpu_to_le16(0);
> >> >> + mcfg->allocation[0].start_bus_number = 0;
> >> >> + mcfg->allocation[0].end_bus_number =
> >> >> PCIE_MMCFG_BUS(info->mcfg_size - 1);
> >> >
> >> >> + /*
> >> >> + * MCFG is used for ECAM which can be enabled or disabled by guest.
> >> >> + * To avoid table size changes (which create migration issues),
> >> >> + * always create the table even if there are no allocations,
> >> >> + * but set the signature to a reserved value in this case.
> >> >> + * ACPI spec requires OSPMs to ignore such tables.
> >> >> + */
> >> >> + if (info->mcfg_base == PCIE_BASE_ADDR_UNMAPPED) {
> >> >> + /* Reserved signature: ignored by OSPM */
> >> >> + sig = "QEMU";
> >> >> + } else {
> >> >> + sig = "MCFG";
> >> >> + }
> >> >I'd leave these hack at acpi-build.c, just push it up call chain.
> >>
> >> Assign sig in acpi-build.c and pass it to build_mcfg()?
> >nope, see more below
> >
> >
> >> >More over we don't really need it since resizeable memory region was
> >> >introduced.
> >> >
> >> >So we need to keep table_blob size only for legacy usecase (pre resizable)
> >> >and for that just padding table_blob on required size would be sufficient,
> >> >there is no need to create dummy QEMU table.
> >> >As for newer machines (since resizeable memory region) we don't need to
> >> >do even that i.e. just skip table generation altogether if guest disabled
> >> >it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I am lost at this place.
> >>
> >> sig is a part of ACPI table header, you mean the sig is not necessary to
> >> be set in ACPI table header?
> >>
> >> "skip table generation" means remove build_header() in build_mcfg()?
> >I mean do not call build_mcfg() at all when you don't have to.
> >
> >And when you need to keep table_blob the same size (for old machines)
> >using acpi_data_push() to reserve space instead of build_mcfg(sig="QEMU")
> >might just work as well. it's still hack but it can live in x86 specific
> >acpi_build() keeping build_mcfg() generic.
> >
>
> Seems got your idea.
>
> >As for defining what to use as criteria to decide when we need to keep
> >table_blob size the same, I don't remember history of it, so I'd suggest
> >to look at commit a1666142, study history of acpi_ram_update() and
> >legacy_acpi_table_size to figure out since which machine type one doesn't
> >have to keep table_blob size the same.
> >
>
> OK, let me study the history first.
>
> BTW, the legacy here is hardware specification level or qemu software
> design level?
it's QEMU only, you need to find a version of QEMU (machine type)
which didn't have re-sizable MemoryRegion and the next version most likely
would have a knob somewhere in machine class definition saying that we don't
care about sizes anymore or care about sizes only for previous machine types.
