On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:35:23PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
In upstream seabios.git, the c040 is not written, but the device
returns from 0x1c (only reads and writes to 0x18 and 0x1c are
shown below)
pci_read_config: (val) 0x4 - 0x18 (addr)
pci_write_config: (val) 0x -
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp wrote:
Added Cc: seab...@seabios.org
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 06:31:01AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:52:23PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:52:36AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Hi, 64-bit BARs still do not seem to be working.
When using the latest seabios the guest does not hit a BUG:
statement, but booting still fails
HPET: 1 timers in total, 0 timers will be used for per-cpu timer
divide error:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp
wrote:
On
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:52:23PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13,
Added Cc: seab...@seabios.org
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 06:31:01AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 06:52:23PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:10:28AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Is this really the address the
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Seabios completely ignore the 64-bitness of the BAR. ?Looks like it also
thinks the second half of the BAR is an I/O region instead of memory
(hence
the c200, that's part of the pci portio region.
I've sent the patches
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Seabios completely ignore the 64-bitness of the BAR. ?Looks like it also
thinks the second half of the BAR is an I/O region instead of memory
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:48:19PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:05:51PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Seabios completely ignore the 64-bitness of the BAR. ?Looks like it
also
On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Is this really the address the guest programmed, or is qemu
misinterpreting
it?
Well, what's the answer?
You're going to have to give me a hint on how to determine that.
lspci in the guest shows the following
Memory at
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Is this really the address the guest programmed, or is qemu
misinterpreting
it?
Well, what's the answer?
You're going to have to give me a hint on how to determine that.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:48:13AM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/28/2010 11:38 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
Is this really the address the guest programmed, or is qemu
misinterpreting
it?
Well, what's the
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/25/2010 12:51 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam
On 06/25/2010 12:51 AM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonellc...@cs.ualberta.ca
wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonellc...@cs.ualberta.ca
wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device. In simply
changing the memory type
On 06/11/2010 08:31 PM, Cam Macdonell wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonellc...@cs.ualberta.ca wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device. In simply
changing the memory type in pci_register_bar() to
PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 I get an unusual
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Cam Macdonell c...@cs.ualberta.ca wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to use a 64-bit BAR for my shared memory device. In simply
changing the memory type in pci_register_bar() to
PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 I get an unusual physical address for
that BAR (and my driver
19 matches
Mail list logo
