From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34445) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlFwK-0005BJ-T9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:36:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlFwE-00045i-Jo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:36:52 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:54168) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XlFwE-00044b-EX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:36:46 -0500 Message-ID: <545768CC.3000903@intel.com> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:36:44 +0800 From: "Chen, Tiejun" MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20140901060506.GA20186@redhat.com> <54042514.6090206@intel.com> <003AAFE53969E14CB1F09B6FD68C3CD478F16D2A@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <54277979.7070408@intel.com> <20140929100111.GA32459@redhat.com> <542A18BD.2060008@intel.com> <20141007072653.GB2424@redhat.com> <543622CC.6050807@intel.com> <20141012095021.GC9567@redhat.com> <544A0174.7000003@intel.com> <20141024134747.GA6024@redhat.com> <5451ED1E.1000300@intel.com> <5457335B.1000308@intel.com> <5457686E.7020601@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5457686E.7020601@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen:i386:pc_piix: create isa bridge specific to IGD passthrough List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On 2014/11/3 19:35, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 03/11/2014 08:48, Chen, Tiejun wrote: >>>>>> I think the point was mostly to reserve 1f to prevent >>>>>> devices from using it. >>>>>> As we populate slots in order it doesn't seem to important ... >>>>> >>>>> If we populate slot at !1f GFX driver can't find this ISA bridge. >>>> >>>> Right, but I mean if no special options are used, 1f will typically >>>> stay free without any effort on our side. >>> >>> Yeah. >>> >>> Actually based on current info we know, seems 1f is just specific to our >>> scenario :) So I always think we can occupy that. But Paolo and you can >>> really determine this point. >> >> What's your idea? > > I do not have any objection to always occupying 1f for Xen IGD passthrough. > Cool ;-) Thanks Tiejun