From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40189)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Ui21e-0006zH-QZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:32:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Ui21V-0004Tx-CO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:32:14 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58939)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1Ui21V-0004TL-2c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 08:32:05 -0400
Message-ID: <51A746C1.5050902@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:32:01 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1369911913-10934-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<1369911913-10934-3-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
	<51A7430D.7060102@redhat.com> <20130530121950.GA12791@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130530121950.GA12791@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/5] pci: store PCI hole ranges in
 guestinfo structure
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: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 05/30/13 14:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:16:13PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>   Hi,
>>
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        guest_info->pci_info.w64.begin = 0x100000000ULL + above_4g_mem_size;
>>> +        guest_info->pci_info.w64.end =  guest_info->pci_info.w64.begin +
>>> +            (0x1ULL << 62);
>>
>> Doesn't this give unaligned windows?
> 
> PCI Bridge windows do not need to be size aligned.
> 
> In any case, the windows are *exactly* as calculated
> by seabios - apparently it does not size-align windows either.

Surely not.  SeaBIOS sizes the 64bit window according to the space
needed by the 64bit bars it wants to map there.

>>> +    /* Set PCI window size the way seabios has always done it. */
>>> +    /* TODO: consider just starting at below_4g_mem_size */
>>
>> Used to be that way.  Was changed for alignment reasons (i.e. 1G window
>> starts at 1G border etc).
> 
> Where's the alignment requirement coming from?

seabios creates a mtrr entry for the window, which doesn't work in case
it isn't aligned (at least not with a single entry).

Also real hardware tends to do it this way.

cheers,
  Gerd