On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Igor Kovalenko
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Jan
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Igor Kovalenko
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun,
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:10:58AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > BTW, I think we really should think about the right way to address the
> > swap/noswap issue without using a preprocessor. Maybe make pci host
> > bridge explic
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform
> > > specific,
> > > the standard (mostly) applies to what happens below the bridg
> Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform specific,
> the standard (mostly) applies to what happens below the bridge. There's
> no real standard for how PCI host bridge is connected to processor
> AFAIK, it's by luck we can share code there at all.
Well, yes and no .
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:08 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> IIRC qemu's mmio functions just pass the register value the guest had
> at that moment to the mmio function.
That means that qemu HW emulation needs, for each device, to add a layer
of byteswap depending on whether the CPU is LE or BE w
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Well, the main issue if I understand correcttly is that basically the
> same hardware bridge can be connected to host in different ways. Yes, we
> can say "if it's connected differently it's a different device" but this
> is slightly ug
On 04.01.2010, at 23:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:51:48AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Yes, but I think how
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:25:30AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Well, the main issue if I understand correcttly is that basically the
> > same hardware bridge can be connected to host in different ways. Yes, we
> > can say "
> So, it appears that this is not the case for many platforms: bridge
> itself does a byteswap to make devices behind it work according to spec,
> but this does not apply to programming bridge itself.
>
> This seems common on BE platforms, this is why qemu has
> ifdef TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN there
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform
> > specific,
> > the standard (mostly) applies to what happens below the bridge. There's
> > no real standard for how PCI host bridge is connected t
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> BTW, I think we really should think about the right way to address the
> swap/noswap issue without using a preprocessor. Maybe make pci host
> bridge explicitly specify whether to swap bytes? How about adding a
> field in PCIHostState
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:51:48AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform
> >
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:08:19AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 04.01.2010, at 23:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:51:48AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:5
On 04.01.2010, at 12:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 07:45:16PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>> +static PCIDevice *pci_host_dev_find_fn_noswap(PCIHostState *s, uint32_t
>> addr)
>> +{
>> +return pci_host_find_dev_active(s->bus, pci_host_pci_addr(s, addr));
>> +}
>> +
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 07:45:16PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> +static PCIDevice *pci_host_dev_find_fn_noswap(PCIHostState *s, uint32_t addr)
> +{
> +return pci_host_find_dev_active(s->bus, pci_host_pci_addr(s, addr));
> +}
> +
> +static PCIDevice *pci_host_dev_find_fn(PCIHostState *s, uint3
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 04.01.2010, at 11:45, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:26:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100,
On 04.01.2010, at 11:45, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:26:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
I think if unin_pci is the only user, it'd be b
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:26:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >> I think if unin_pci is the only user, it'd be better to do it hacky
> >> inside unin_pci.c. But if th
On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> I think if unin_pci is the only user, it'd be better to do it hacky
>> inside unin_pci.c. But if there's a chance there's another user, it'd
>> be better to make it generic.
>>
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> I think if unin_pci is the only user, it'd be better to do it hacky
> inside unin_pci.c. But if there's a chance there's another user, it'd
> be better to make it generic.
>
> Since this is the first time I ever stumbled across type 0 and
On 03.01.2010, at 19:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsi
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM
On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsi
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM
On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Different host buses may have different layou
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> Different host buses may have different layouts for config space accessors.
> >>
> >> The Mac U3 for e
On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Different host buses may have different layouts for config space accessors.
>>
>> The Mac U3 for example uses the following define to access Type 0 (directly
>> attached) devic
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Different host buses may have different layouts for config space accessors.
>
> The Mac U3 for example uses the following define to access Type 0 (directly
> attached) devices:
>
> #define MACRISC_CFA0(devfn, off)\
>
33 matches
Mail list logo
