base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1); + + /* If we're using mem_resource, check for RMRR conflicts */ + while ( resource == &mem_resource && + next_rmrr > 0 && + check_overlap(base, bar_sz, + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr, + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size)) { + base = memory_map.map[next_rmrr].addr + memory_map.map[next_rmrr].size; + base = (resource->base + bar_sz - 1) & ~(uint64_t)(bar_sz - 1); + next_rmrr=find_next_rmrr(base); + } + bar_data |= (uint32_t)base; bar_data_upper = (uint32_t)(base >> 32); base += bar_sz;
Actually this chunk of codes are really similar as what we did in my previous revisions from RFC ~ v3. It's just trying to skip and then allocate, right? As Jan pointed out, there are two key problems:
#1. All skipping action probably cause a result of no sufficient MMIO to allocate all devices as before.
#2. Another is that alignment issue. When the original "base" change to align to rdm_end, some spaces are wasted. Especially, these spaces could be allocated to other smaller bars.
This is one key reason why I had new revision started from v4 to address these two points :)
Thanks Tiejun _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
