From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
xen-devel@lists.xen.org, wei.liu2@citrix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:08:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5745C00A.2060909@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22341.47139.700302.6960@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
On 05/25/2016 10:35 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses"):
>> Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses"):
>>> Recent changes in ACPICA (specifically, Linux commit 66b1ed5aa8dd ("ACPICA:
>>> ACPI 2.0, Hardware: Add access_width/bit_offset support for
>>> acpi_hw_write()") result in guests issuing 32-bit accesses to IO space.
>>>
>>> QEMU needs to be able to handle them.
>> I'm kind of missing something here. If the specification has recently
>> been updated to permit this, why should old hardware support it ?
>>
>> (I tried to find the Linux upstream git commit you're referring to but
>> my linux.git is up to date and it seems not to be fetching within a
>> reasonable time, so I thought I would reply now.)
> I have looked at this commit now and I am none the wiser.
>
> It says just "This patch adds access_width/bit_offset support in
> acpi_hw_write()". I also looked at the two linked messages:
> https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/48eea5e7
> https://bugs.acpica.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1240
> and none of this explains why this supported is needed in a
> our deep-frozen ancient branch.
IIUIC, the Linux/ACPICA patch makes ACPICA use correct field in ACPI's
Generic Address Structure (section 5.2.3.2 in the 6.0 spec). Before the
patch it used register's bit_width and now it will use access_size.
According to the spec access_size 0 means undefined/legacy access.
I just looked at what hvmloader provides and at least for FADT
address_size is 0. And I wonder whether ACPICA uses 4-byte-access for
these cases.
So maybe instead of trying to patch qemu-trad I should see if I can make
hvmloader provide proper access size. Let me poke at that.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-25 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-20 13:52 [PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-23 12:02 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-23 13:02 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-23 13:05 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-23 13:42 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-25 14:26 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 14:35 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 15:08 ` Boris Ostrovsky [this message]
2016-05-25 15:22 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 15:36 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-25 16:03 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-25 16:09 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 16:51 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-25 16:57 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-26 14:00 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 16:02 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5745C00A.2060909@oracle.com \
--to=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.