On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Igor Kovalenko
igor.v.kovale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Blue Swirl blauwir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:51:48AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
BTW, I think we really should think about the right way to address the
swap/noswap issue without using a preprocessor. Maybe make pci host
bridge explicitly specify whether to swap bytes? How about adding a
field in PCIHostState to
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform
specific,
the standard (mostly) applies to what happens below the bridge. There's
no real standard for how PCI host bridge is connected to
So, it appears that this is not the case for many platforms: bridge
itself does a byteswap to make devices behind it work according to spec,
but this does not apply to programming bridge itself.
This seems common on BE platforms, this is why qemu has
ifdef TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN there
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:25:30AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Well, the main issue if I understand correcttly is that basically the
same hardware bridge can be connected to host in different ways. Yes, we
can say if it's
On 04.01.2010, at 23:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 09:51:48AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Yes, but I think how you program
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:12 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Well, the main issue if I understand correcttly is that basically the
same hardware bridge can be connected to host in different ways. Yes, we
can say if it's connected differently it's a different device but this
is slightly ugly,
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:08 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
IIRC qemu's mmio functions just pass the register value the guest had
at that moment to the mmio function.
That means that qemu HW emulation needs, for each device, to add a layer
of byteswap depending on whether the CPU is LE or BE
Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform specific,
the standard (mostly) applies to what happens below the bridge. There's
no real standard for how PCI host bridge is connected to processor
AFAIK, it's by luck we can share code there at all.
Well, yes and no ...
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:25 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:53:52AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Yes, but I think how you program your host to pci bridge is platform
specific,
the standard (mostly) applies to what happens below the bridge. There's
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:10:58AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 13:07 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
BTW, I think we really should think about the right way to address the
swap/noswap issue without using a preprocessor. Maybe make pci host
bridge explicitly
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:26:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
I think if unin_pci is the only user, it'd be better to do it hacky
inside unin_pci.c. But if there's a
On 04.01.2010, at 11:45, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:26:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
I think if unin_pci is the only user, it'd be better to do it
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:55:10AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 04.01.2010, at 11:45, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:26:46AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 07:45:16PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
+static PCIDevice *pci_host_dev_find_fn_noswap(PCIHostState *s, uint32_t addr)
+{
+return pci_host_find_dev_active(s-bus, pci_host_pci_addr(s, addr));
+}
+
+static PCIDevice *pci_host_dev_find_fn(PCIHostState *s, uint32_t
On 04.01.2010, at 12:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 07:45:16PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
+static PCIDevice *pci_host_dev_find_fn_noswap(PCIHostState *s, uint32_t
addr)
+{
+return pci_host_find_dev_active(s-bus, pci_host_pci_addr(s, addr));
+}
+
+static
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Different host buses may have different layouts for config space accessors.
The Mac U3 for example uses the following define to access Type 0 (directly
attached) devices:
#define MACRISC_CFA0(devfn, off)\
On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Different host buses may have different layouts for config space accessors.
The Mac U3 for example uses the following define to access Type 0 (directly
attached) devices:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Different host buses may have different layouts for config space accessors.
The Mac U3 for example uses
On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
Different host buses may have different layouts for config
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 02:50:45AM +0100, Alexander
On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 05:09:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S.
On 03.01.2010, at 19:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:15PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:44, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:40:52PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03.01.2010, at 18:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On
On 03.01.2010, at 21:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 21:27 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
I think if unin_pci is the only user, it'd be better to do it hacky
inside unin_pci.c. But if there's a chance there's another user, it'd
be better to make it generic.
Since
29 matches
Mail list logo
