On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 16:57, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 12/17/19 1:58 AM, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > > > > >> On 17 Dec 2019, at 11:51, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Yes, the idea is that you could have for one version of the device > >> > >> parent 0x000-0x7ff > >> stuff 0x000-0x3ff > >> morestuff 0x400-0x7ff > >> > >> and for another > >> > >> parent 0x000-0x3ff > >> stuff 0x000-0x3ff > >> morestuff 0x400-0x7ff > >> > >> where parent is the BAR, and you can share the code to generate the tree > >> underneath parent. > > > > I can see why you would have code reuse reasons to do that, > > but frankly it looks buggy and confusing. In the rare cases > > where this is indented, maybe add a flag making it explicit? > > The guest OS is programming the BAR, producing a configuration that, while it > doesn't make sense, is also legal per PCI. QEMU cannot abort for this > configuration.
Does guest programming of the PCI BAR size actually change the size of the 'parent' region, or does it just result in the creation of an appropriately sized alias into 'parent' ? thanks -- PMM
