From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57063)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <markmb@redhat.com>) id 1aHZY8-0006sd-Vk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:06:01 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <markmb@redhat.com>) id 1aHZY6-0002Ls-2E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:06:00 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59740)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <markmb@redhat.com>) id 1aHZY5-0002Lg-Tn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:05:58 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:05:51 +0100
From: Marc =?UTF-8?B?TWFyw60=?= <markmb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160108170551.304fe666@markmb_rh>
In-Reply-To: <568FDB9F.7080709@redhat.com>
References: <1452265115-27177-1-git-send-email-markmb@redhat.com>
	<568FDB9F.7080709@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add optionrom compatible with fw_cfg DMA
	version
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@gmail.com>, Kevin O'Connor <kevin@koconnor.net>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:54:07 +0100
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

>=20
>=20
> On 08/01/2016 15:58, Marc Mar=C3=AD wrote:
> >=20
> > +static inline uint16_t readw_addr32(const void *addr) {
> > +    uint16_t val;
> > +    asm("addr32 movw %1, %0" : "=3Dr"(val) : "g"(addr));
> > +    barrier();
> > +    return val;
> > +}
> > +
>=20
> Does SeaBIOS ensure that DS base is zero here?

DS =3D CS:

"   movw %cs, %ax\n"
"   movw %ax, %ds\n"

At the beginning of the ROM.
=20
> > +static void transition32(void)
> > +{
> > +    extern void *gdt;
> > +    uint32_t data_segment;
> > +    struct length_addr rombios_gdt;
> > +
> > +    data_segment =3D read_ds();
> > +    rombios_gdt.addr =3D (uint32_t)((data_segment << 4) +
> > (uint32_t)(&gdt));
> > +    rombios_gdt.length =3D (3 * 8) - 1;
> > +
> > +    /* Load GDT */
> > +    asm("data32 lgdt %0" : : "m"(rombios_gdt): "memory");
> > +
> > +	/* Get us to protected mode and set ES to a 32 bit segment
> > */
> > +    asm("mov $1, %%eax\n"
> > +        "mov %%eax, %%cr0\n"
> > +        "mov $0x10, %%eax\n"
> > +        "mov %%eax, %%es\n"
> > +        : : : "eax");
> > +
> > +    /* We're now running in 16-bit CS, but 32-bit ES! */
> > +}
>=20
> Do you even need to go to 32-bit mode?  The only reason to do so in
> the original ROM was to do a "rep insb" above 1 GB, but here fw_cfg
> can do DMA to high addresses for you.

There's no need of course. I was looking at the original ROM and I did
not think this through.

Thanks for your comments
Marc