Quoting Claudio Fontana (2015-01-09 08:57:39)
> Hello,
>
> resurrecting an old thread.. I incurred in the same issue being
> discussed before,
> where QEMU silently ignores PCI BAR address programming attempts where
> the I/O space offset is 0 (zero).
>
> I think that from a QEMU "user" standpoin
Hello,
resurrecting an old thread.. I incurred in the same issue being
discussed before,
where QEMU silently ignores PCI BAR address programming attempts where
the I/O space offset is 0 (zero).
I think that from a QEMU "user" standpoint, beside this particular issue,
which can be easily worked ar
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:33:02PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 August 2014 22:21, Michael Roth wrote:
> > But I guess there's still a separate issue, where there's a high liklihood
> > that
> > a 0 address would conflict with some hard-wired IO address? Wouldn't this
> > be a
> > guest b
On 28 August 2014 22:21, Michael Roth wrote:
> But I guess there's still a separate issue, where there's a high liklihood
> that
> a 0 address would conflict with some hard-wired IO address? Wouldn't this be a
> guest bug though?
Even if it's a guest bug, we should act like the hardware does
if
Quoting Michael S. Tsirkin (2014-08-27 08:47:51)
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 07:21:54PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> > Some kernels program a 0 address for io regions. PCI 3.0 spec
> > section 6.2.5.1 doesn't seem to disallow this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Roth
>
> Yes the PCI spec does not
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 07:21:54PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> Some kernels program a 0 address for io regions. PCI 3.0 spec
> section 6.2.5.1 doesn't seem to disallow this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth
Yes the PCI spec does not care.
But unfortunately as documented in the comment, at
least
Quoting Alexey Kardashevskiy (2014-08-26 04:14:27)
> On 08/19/2014 10:21 AM, Michael Roth wrote:
> > Some kernels program a 0 address for io regions. PCI 3.0 spec
> > section 6.2.5.1 doesn't seem to disallow this.
>
>
> I remember there was discussion about it but I forgot :) Why does it have
> t
On 26 August 2014 10:14, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 10:21 AM, Michael Roth wrote:
>> Some kernels program a 0 address for io regions. PCI 3.0 spec
>> section 6.2.5.1 doesn't seem to disallow this.
>
>
> I remember there was discussion about it but I forgot :)
I think the conclusi
On 19.08.14 02:21, Michael Roth wrote:
> Some kernels program a 0 address for io regions. PCI 3.0 spec
> section 6.2.5.1 doesn't seem to disallow this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth
This patch does not need to be inside of this patch set. It also should
go via Michael's tree.
Alex
> ---
>
On 08/19/2014 10:21 AM, Michael Roth wrote:
> Some kernels program a 0 address for io regions. PCI 3.0 spec
> section 6.2.5.1 doesn't seem to disallow this.
I remember there was discussion about it but I forgot :) Why does it have
to be a part of this patchset? Worth mentioning in the commit log
Some kernels program a 0 address for io regions. PCI 3.0 spec
section 6.2.5.1 doesn't seem to disallow this.
Signed-off-by: Michael Roth
---
hw/pci/pci.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
index 351d320..9578749 100644
--- a/hw/pci/pci
11 matches
Mail list logo
