* [Qemu-devel] subregion collisions
@ 2013-09-14 21:31 Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-09-15 10:37 ` Peter Maydell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2013-09-14 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel
Enabling the print in memory.c shows quite a lot
of these:
warning: subregion collision fec00000/1000 (ioapic) vs 8000000/f8000000
(pci-hole)
warning: subregion collision fed00000/400 (hpet) vs 8000000/f8000000
(pci-hole)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 8/8 (dma-cont)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 0/8 (dma-chan)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 64/1 (i8042-cmd)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 60/1 (i8042-data)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 61/1 (elcr)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 40/4 (pit)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 70/2 (rtc)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 20/2 (pic)
warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic)
warning: subregion collision b0000000/10000000 (pcie-mmcfg) vs
8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
They likely work fine because the initialization order
happens to give priority to regions which are
registered later.
But we really should fix these, should we not?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] subregion collisions
2013-09-14 21:31 [Qemu-devel] subregion collisions Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2013-09-15 10:37 ` Peter Maydell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2013-09-15 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: QEMU Developers
On 14 September 2013 22:31, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> Enabling the print in memory.c shows quite a lot
> of these:
> warning: subregion collision fec00000/1000 (ioapic) vs 8000000/f8000000
> (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision fed00000/400 (hpet) vs 8000000/f8000000
> (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 8/8 (dma-cont)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 0/8 (dma-chan)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 64/1 (i8042-cmd)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 60/1 (i8042-data)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 61/1 (elcr)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 40/4 (pit)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 70/2 (rtc)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 20/2 (pic)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic)
> warning: subregion collision b0000000/10000000 (pcie-mmcfg) vs
> 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
>
> They likely work fine because the initialization order
> happens to give priority to regions which are
> registered later.
> But we really should fix these, should we not?
Yes, I think we should. Somebody needs to work out what the
correct priority order is and register things with the overlap
flag set and a suitable priority value. (This might be easier
to do if that patch for "make priorities signed rather than
unsigned" is fixed to pass code review and committed.)
-- PMM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-09-15 10:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-09-14 21:31 [Qemu-devel] subregion collisions Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-09-15 10:37 ` Peter Maydell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).