On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 16:23:52 +0200 Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes: > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:32:44PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 14:45:40 +1000 > >> David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 07:12:47PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > >> > > Some recent error handling cleanups unveiled issues with our support of > >> > > PCI bridges: > >> > > > >> > > 1) QEMU aborts when using non-standard PCI bridge types, > >> > > unveiled by commit 7ef1553dac "spapr_pci: Drop some dead error > >> > > handling" > >> > > > >> > > $ qemu-system-ppc64 -M pseries -device pcie-pci-bridge > >> > > Unexpected error in object_property_find() at qom/object.c:1240: > >> > > qemu-system-ppc64: -device pcie-pci-bridge: Property '.chassis_nr' not > >> > > found > >> > > Aborted (core dumped) > >> > > >> > Oops, I thought we had a check that we actually had a "pci-bridge" > >> > device before continuing with the hotplug, but I guess not. > >> > >> Ah... are you suggesting we should explicitly check the actual type > >> of the bridge rather than looking for the "chassis_nr" property ? > > > > Uh.. I thought about it, but I don't think it matters much which way > > we do it. > > Would it make sense to add the "chassis_nr" property to *all* PCI > bridge devices? > I see that the "PCI Express to PCI/PCI-X Bridge Specification" mentions a "Chassis Number Register" which looks very similar to the what exists in standard PCI-to-PCI brdiges. This doesn't seem to be implemented in our "pcie-pci-bridge" device model though, but of course I have no idea why :) Maybe Michael or Marcel (cc'd) can share some thoughts about that ? > [...] >
