From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:33662) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R60tk-0004q9-8u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:02:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R60te-0004Ga-L6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:02:08 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50685 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R60te-0004GM-FO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:02:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4E789CD9.3040303@suse.de> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:02:01 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1314436348-28837-1-git-send-email-daniel@drv.nu> <2803ABD2-E8EA-4AE3-9AD1-21FC94DCB5BE@suse.de> <4E789797.8010305@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E789797.8010305@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ahci: add port I/O index-data pair List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Daniel Verkamp On 09/20/2011 03:39 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 28.08.2011 20:48, schrieb Alexander Graf: >> On 27.08.2011, at 04:12, Daniel Verkamp wrote: >> >>> Implement an I/O space index-data register pair as defined by the AHCI >>> spec, including the corresponding SATA PCI capability and BAR. >>> >>> This allows real-mode code to access the AHCI registers; real-mode >>> code cannot address the memory-mapped register space because it is >>> beyond the first megabyte. >> Very nice patch! I'll check and compare with a real ICH-9 when I get back to .de, but I'd assume you also did that already ;). Once I checked that the IO region is set up similarly, I'll give you my ack. > What's the status with review/testing of this patch, Alex? Is it ready > to be merged, should I drop it or do you just need some more time? If you don't see regressions with it, I'd say we're good. I still don't have a validation program, but considering that it's a reasonably simple change and makes us more conforming to real hardware, I don't see why we shouldn't have it. Alex