On 2014/11/3 21:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:01:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
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
Discussed on irc, Paolo said
<bonzini> so i don't really care how the ISA bridge is created
This means all those previous patches creating new separate machine
should be gone.
I would rebase these two patches to resend again as RFC.
Thanks
Tiejun
