From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59521)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VKxPa-0005y7-TH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:29:56 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VKxPU-00060c-TD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:29:50 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:55463)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VKxPU-00060T-Lt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:29:44 -0400
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8ELThpk027920
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:29:43 -0400
Received: from redhat.com (vpn1-4-98.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.98])
	by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP
	id r8ELTfpt019735
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:29:42 -0400
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:31:53 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20130914213152.GA26991@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [Qemu-devel] subregion collisions
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

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?