Hi Miao, On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Miao Yan <yanmiaob...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bin, > > 2016-01-19 17:25 GMT+08:00 Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>: >> Hi Miao, >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Miao Yan <yanmiaob...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Bin, >>> >>> 2016-01-16 21:23 GMT+08:00 Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>: >>>> Hi Miao, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Miao Yan <yanmiaob...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Enable ACPI IO space for piix4 (for pc board) and ich9 (for q35 board) >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Miao Yan <yanmiaob...@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/x86/cpu/qemu/qemu.c | 39 >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/arch-qemu/device.h | 8 +++++++ >>>>> 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/cpu/qemu/qemu.c b/arch/x86/cpu/qemu/qemu.c >>>>> index 46111c9..e7d8a6c 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/x86/cpu/qemu/qemu.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/cpu/qemu/qemu.c >>>>> @@ -15,6 +15,41 @@ >>>>> >>>>> static bool i440fx; >>>>> >>>>> +static void enable_pm_piix(void) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + u8 en; >>>>> + u16 device, cmd; >>>>> + >>>>> + device = x86_pci_read_config16(PIIX_PM, PCI_DEVICE_ID); >>>>> + if (device != PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82371AB_3) >>>>> + return; >>>> >>>> Guess the check is already covered in qemu_chipset_init(). >>> >>> >>> Do you mean this check ? >>> >>> device = x86_pci_read_config16(PCI_BDF(0, 0, 0), PCI_DEVICE_ID); >>> i440fx = (device == PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_82441); >>> >>> So is it guaranteed that PIIX_PM is always on that BDF ? >> >> I believe so. If you look at the codes in qemu.c, the variable "static >> bool i440fx" is used to distinguish QEMU machine pc and q35. It does >> not check whether the chipset is i440fx, or PIIX which is the chipset >> connected to i440fx. >> >>> >>> IMO, we are operating on another chipset, and we better make >>> sure it's the one we expect, besides, an extra check won't do any harm. >>> >> >> Yes, that makes sense. So if we go with your way, maybe we need expand >> "static bool i440fx" to multiple variables and use correct variable to >> check? But this looks a bit complex than a single variable. >> > > Yes, that's a little bit complex and not necessary if their PCI > addresses are fixed . And I don't think we should do it in this > patchset. > > So how do you suggest we do this ? Either I remove the two checks to > make it aligned with the rest or create a separate patch to do the > checks ? >
I suggest we do it in existing way (single variable). [snip] Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot