On 10/13/17 18:18, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 October 2017 at 13:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Another idea is to move *the* system DRAM base to a different guest-phys
>> address. (Likely using a different version of the "virt" machine type,
>> or even a different machine type entirely.) This would
On 10/13/17 15:21, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 13 October 2017 at 13:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Hi Ard, Leif,
>>
>> the current physical memory map of the "virt" machine type doesn't leave
>> much room for ECAM / MMCONFIG, which limits the number of PCI Express
>> root ports and downstream ports (e
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 05:18:59PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 October 2017 at 13:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > Another idea is to move *the* system DRAM base to a different guest-phys
> > address. (Likely using a different version of the "virt" machine type,
> > or even a different machine
On 13 October 2017 at 13:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Another idea is to move *the* system DRAM base to a different guest-phys
> address. (Likely using a different version of the "virt" machine type,
> or even a different machine type entirely.) This would not be compatible
> with current ArmVirtQemu
On 13 October 2017 at 13:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hi Ard, Leif,
>
> the current physical memory map of the "virt" machine type doesn't leave
> much room for ECAM / MMCONFIG, which limits the number of PCI Express
> root ports and downstream ports (each port takes a separate bus number,
> and each
Hi Ard, Leif,
the current physical memory map of the "virt" machine type doesn't leave
much room for ECAM / MMCONFIG, which limits the number of PCI Express
root ports and downstream ports (each port takes a separate bus number,
and each bus number eats up a chunk of the ECAM area). Also, each por
