On 7/7/22 14:05, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 17:10:11 +0100
> Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> This in preparation to allow pc_pci_hole64_start() to be called early
>> in pc_memory_init(), handle CXL memory region end when its underlying
>> memory region isn't yet initialized.
>>
>> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.came...@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> hw/i386/pc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
>> index 8655cc3b8894..d6dff71012ab 100644
>> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
>> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
>> @@ -857,6 +857,19 @@ static uint64_t pc_get_cxl_range_end(PCMachineState
>> *pcms)
>> start = fw->mr.addr + memory_region_size(&fw->mr);
>> }
>> }
>> + } else {
>
>
>> + hwaddr cxl_size = MiB;
>> +
>> + start = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms);
>> + if (pcms->cxl_devices_state.fixed_windows) {
>> + GList *it;
>> +
>> + start = ROUND_UP(start + cxl_size, 256 * MiB);
>> + for (it = pcms->cxl_devices_state.fixed_windows; it; it =
>> it->next) {
>> + CXLFixedWindow *fw = it->data;
>> + start += fw->size;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> /me wondering if this can replace block above that supposedly does
> the same only using initialized cxl memory regions?
>
I was thinking about the same thing as of writing.
If the calculation returns the same values might as well just replace it
as opposed to branching out similar logic.
I can do that in v7.
