>>> On 08.06.15 at 13:28, <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:55:22AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> while function 0 has >> >> 0x10: Base Address Register 0 = 0xca23000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> prefetchable) >> 0x18: Base Address Register 2 = 0xca24000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> prefetchable) >> 0x20: Base Address Register 4 = 0xca25000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> prefetchable) >> >> and function 1 >> >> 0x10: Base Address Register 0 = 0xca20000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> prefetchable) >> 0x18: Base Address Register 2 = 0xca21000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> prefetchable) >> 0x20: Base Address Register 4 = 0xca22000c (Memory space, 64-bit access, >> prefetchable) >> >> > Does the sibling device have a BAR overlapping the address? >> >> No, its BARs are fully separate. > > Judging from the above, it's actually function 1's BAR 2 that > is accessed? Are you saying disabling memory on function 0 > breaks function 2 somehow?
Oops, just noticed I didn't reply to this. Not sure how you come to that conclusion - the ITP log says that the bad write is to 0xca25004c. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
