On 03/11/2014 12:47, Chen, Tiejun wrote: > On 2014/11/3 19:36, Chen, Tiejun wrote: >> On 2014/11/3 19:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 03/11/2014 08:48, Chen, Tiejun wrote: >>>>>>>> I think the point was mostly to reserve 1f to prevent >>>>>>>> devices from using it. >>>>>>>> As we populate slots in order it doesn't seem to important ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we populate slot at !1f GFX driver can't find this ISA bridge. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, but I mean if no special options are used, 1f will typically >>>>>> stay free without any effort on our side. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah. >>>>> >>>>> Actually based on current info we know, seems 1f is just specific to >>>>> our >>>>> scenario :) So I always think we can occupy that. But Paolo and you >>>>> can >>>>> really determine this point. >>>> >>>> What's your idea? >>> >>> I do not have any objection to always occupying 1f for Xen IGD >>> passthrough. > > After I go back to look at this again, I hope you don't misunderstand > what Michael mean now. He was saying we don't need to create a new > separate machine specific to IGD passthrough. But that idea is just from > you :)
It's difficult for me to follow, because xen_igd_passthrough_pc_hvm_init does not exist in the current tree. The patches seem good to me; I was assuming that the new machine type would call xen_igd_passthrough_pc_hvm_init, but apparently I'm wrong? Paolo
