On 2024/11/21 17:52, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 03:05:14AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>> On 2024/11/20 17:01, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 03:01:57AM +0000, Chen, Jiqian wrote:
>>>> The only difference between our methods is the timing of updating the size.
>>>> Yours is later than mine because you updated the size when the driver
>>>> re-enabled memory decoding, while I updated the size in time when driver
>>>> resize it.
>>>
>>> Indeed, my last guess is the stale cached size is somehow used in my
>>> approach, and that leads to the failures. One last (possibly dummy?)
>>> thing to try might be to use your patch to detect writes to the resize
>>> control register, but update the BAR sizes in modify_bars(), while
>>> keeping the traces of when the operations happen.
>>>
>> This can work, combine our method, use my patch to detect and write the size
>> into hardware register, and use your patch to update bar[i].size in
>> modify_bars().
>> Attached the combined patch and the xl dmesg.
>
> This is even weirder, so the attached patch works fine?
Yes, it works fine.
And I will double check.
> The only difference with my proposal is that you trap the CTRL registers, but
> the sizing is still done in modify_bars().
>
> What happens if (based on the attached patch) you change
> rebar_ctrl_write() to:
>
> static void cf_check rebar_ctrl_write(const struct pci_dev *pdev,
> unsigned int reg,
> uint32_t val,
> void *data)
> {
> pci_conf_write32(pdev->sbdf, reg, val);
> }
Will try.
>
> And if you don't trap any PCI_REBAR_CTRL at all?
What do you mean? If I don't trap any rebar_ctrl, how can I call
rebar_ctrl_write?
>
> I'm mostly interested in figuring put which part of the code in
> rebar.c makes this work (as compared to my original approach).
>
> Thanks, Roger.
--
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.
