On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:02:45PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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? > > Avi's version is a bit too simple, at least multiple regions in a BAR > should be handled (for example macio.c needs that). But also that can > be added later (pci_register_bar_not_so_simple()?), so Avi's version > could be used as the starting point.
OK I've put it on my branch so people have the chance to comment, and they can be built upon. -- MST
