On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.06.15 at 18:41, wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 05.06.15 at 13:32, wrote:
> >> >> --- a/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
> >> >> +++ b/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
> >> >> @@ -248,7 +248,9 @@ static void xen_pt_pci_write_config(PCID
> >> >>
> >
>>> On 05.06.15 at 18:41, wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 05.06.15 at 13:32, wrote:
>> >> --- a/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
>> >> +++ b/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
>> >> @@ -248,7 +248,9 @@ static void xen_pt_pci_write_config(PCID
>> >>
>> >> /* check unused BAR register */
>> >> in
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.06.15 at 13:32, wrote:
> >> --- a/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
> >> +++ b/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
> >> @@ -248,7 +248,9 @@ static void xen_pt_pci_write_config(PCID
> >>
> >> /* check unused BAR register */
> >> index = xen_pt_bar_offset_to_index(addr);
> >
>>> On 05.06.15 at 13:32, wrote:
>> --- a/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
>> +++ b/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
>> @@ -248,7 +248,9 @@ static void xen_pt_pci_write_config(PCID
>>
>> /* check unused BAR register */
>> index = xen_pt_bar_offset_to_index(addr);
>> -if ((index >= 0) && (val > 0 && val < XEN_PT_BAR
On Fri, 15 May 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Expecting the ROM BAR to be written with an all ones value when sizing
> the region is wrong - the low bit has another meaning (enable/disable)
> and bits 1..10 are reserved. The PCI spec also mandates writing all
> ones to just the address portion of the r
Expecting the ROM BAR to be written with an all ones value when sizing
the region is wrong - the low bit has another meaning (enable/disable)
and bits 1..10 are reserved. The PCI spec also mandates writing all
ones to just the address portion of the register.
Use suitable constants also for initia
