On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:35:23PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> In upstream seabios.git, the c040 is not written, but the device
> returns from 0x1c (only reads and writes to 0x18 and 0x1c are
> shown below)
>
> pci_read_config: (val) 0x4 <- 0x18 (addr)
> pci_write_config: (val) 0xff
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:52:36AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>> Hi, 64-bit BARs still do not seem to be working.
>>
>> When using the latest seabios the guest does not hit a "BUG:"
>> statement, but booting still fails
>>
>> HPET: 1 timers
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:52:36AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> Hi, 64-bit BARs still do not seem to be working.
>
> When using the latest seabios the guest does not hit a "BUG:"
> statement, but booting still fails
>
> HPET: 1 timers in total, 0 timers will be used for per-cpu timer
> divide er
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> Added Cc: seab...@seabios.org
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 06:31:01AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:52:23PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>> >
Added Cc: seab...@seabios.org
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 06:31:01AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:52:23PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata
> > > wrote
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:52:23PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>> >> >> > Seabios completely ignore the 64-bit
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> >> >> > Seabios completely ignore the 64-bitness of the BAR. ?Looks like it
> >> >> > also
> >> >> > thin
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>> >> > Seabios completely ignore the 64-bitness of the BAR. ?Looks like it also
>> >> > thinks the second half of the BAR is an I/O region instead of memory
>> >> > (hence
>> >
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> >> > Seabios completely ignore the 64-bitness of the BAR. ?Looks like it also
> >> > thinks the second half of the BAR is an I/O region instead of memory
> >> > (hence
> >> > the c200, that's part of the pci portio region.
> >
> > I'
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> > On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> > Is this really the address the guest programmed, o
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> > Is this really the address the guest programmed, or is qemu
> > misinterpreting
> > it?
> >
> >
>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>>
>>>
> Is this really the address the guest programmed, or is qemu
> misinterpreting
> it?
>
>
>>>
>>> Well, what's the answer?
>>>
>>
>> You're going to have to give me a hint
On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Is this really the address the guest programmed, or is qemu
misinterpreting
it?
Well, what's the answer?
You're going to have to give me a hint on how to determine that.
lspci in the guest shows the following
Memory at c200
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/25/2010 12:51 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonell
wrote:
>
On 06/25/2010 12:51 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonell
wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device. In simply
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonell
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device. In simply
>>> changing the memory type in pci_regis
On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device. In simply
changing the memory type in pci_register_bar() to
PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 I get an unusual physical address fo
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device. In simply
> changing the memory type in pci_register_bar() to
> PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 I get an unusual physical address for
> that BAR (and my driver crashes in pci_
20 matches
Mail list logo
