On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 03/01/17 19:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 20/12/16 22:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > On 20/12/2016 00:54, Stefano Stabellini
Hi Stefano,
On 03/01/17 19:27, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
On 20/12/16 22:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
On 20/12/2016 00:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
On 16/12/2016 15:49
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> (CC Andrew and Jan)
>
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 20/12/16 22:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi Stefano,
> > >
> > > On 20/12/2016 00:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrot
>>> On 28.12.16 at 19:22, wrote:
> Now, we have two hypercalls XEN_DOMCTL_memory_mapping and
> XENMEM_add_to_physmap_range having two distinct behavior when mapping an
> MMIO into a guest.
>
> We should at least return an error, even if DOM0 decides to ignore it.
>
> I am open to any other sug
(CC Andrew and Jan)
Hi Stefano,
On 20/12/16 22:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,
On 20/12/2016 00:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wr
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jiandi,
>
> On 20/12/2016 07:31, Jiandi An wrote:
> > On 12/19/16 07:11, Julien Grall wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 19/12/2016 13:20, Jaggi, Manish wrote:
> > > > > On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> On 20/12/2016 00:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
> > > > > Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified
Hi Stefano,
On 20/12/2016 00:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
Seeking opinion on how this should be handled p
Hi Jiandi,
On 20/12/2016 07:31, Jiandi An wrote:
On 12/19/16 07:11, Julien Grall wrote:
On 19/12/2016 13:20, Jaggi, Manish wrote:
On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
Seeking opinio
On 12/19/16 07:11, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 19/12/2016 13:20, Jaggi, Manish wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
> Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
> Seeking opinion on how this should be handl
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
> > > Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
> > > Seeking opinion on how this should be handled properly.
> > > Each root complex ECAM
On 19/12/2016 13:20, Jaggi, Manish wrote:
On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
Seeking opinion on how this should be handled properly.
Each root complex ECAM region takes up 64K 4K pag
Hi,
>On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
>>> Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
>>> Seeking opinion on how this should be handled properly.
>>> Each root complex ECAM region takes up 64K 4K pages (256MB).
>>> For some pl
Hi,
On 16/12/2016 15:49, Julien Grall wrote:
On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
Seeking opinion on how this should be handled properly.
Each root complex ECAM region takes up 64K 4K pages (256MB).
For some platforms there mig
On 14/12/16 08:00, Jiandi An wrote:
Hi Guys,
Hello Jiandi,
Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table.
> Seeking opinion on how this should be handled properly.
> Each root complex ECAM region takes up 64K 4K pages (256MB).
> For some platforms there might be multi
Hi Guys,
Xen currently doesn't map ECAM space specified in static ACPI table. Seeking
opinion on how this should be handled properly. Each root complex ECAM region
takes up 64K 4K pages (256MB). For some platforms there might be multiple root
complexes. Is the plan to map all at once? Juli
16 matches
Mail list logo
