Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen:i386:pc_piix: create isa bridge specific to IGD passthrough

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

On 2014/11/3 21:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:01:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/11/2014 12:47, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>> On 2014/11/3 19:36, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> After I go back to look at this again, I hope you don't misunderstand
>>> what Michael mean now. He was saying we don't need to create a new
>>> separate machine specific to IGD passthrough. But that idea is just from
>>> you :)
>>
>> It's difficult for me to follow, because xen_igd_passthrough_pc_hvm_init
>> does not exist in the current tree.
>>
>> The patches seem good to me; I was assuming that the new machine type
>> would call xen_igd_passthrough_pc_hvm_init, but apparently I'm wrong?
>> Paolo
>
> Discussed on irc, Paolo said
> <bonzini> so i don't really care how the ISA bridge is created
>

This means all those previous patches creating new separate machine 
should be gone.

I would rebase these two patches to resend again as RFC.

Thanks
Tiejun