On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:00:55AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> 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
Look at the bridge configuration though - looks like it will only forward transactions to 0xca21XXXX. Anything else will be terminated by the bridge itself. -- MST
