From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E881FE7716E for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 21:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tJJLM-0002cy-Pp; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 16:25:04 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tJJLL-0002bP-8f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 16:25:03 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tJJLJ-0005BA-FQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 16:25:02 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-434a1639637so14882755e9.1 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 13:25:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1733433900; x=1734038700; darn=nongnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PCvG1uFJ7bfIwhXq4y2fDMl/5i/DI5j9+WT4jXv9Bfo=; b=SCY3CkwKH0c30q1IQSAK1eH4DbHJxafE4oB5jaypJK8ScId1+U1y2mUt/KhMa4j1iy 9ZYI3SA9tUfUEAk+x1fFNEkOwRb6DfH7+GGbavinh5x5jauakdpIgRqEJkys/egz8obl hWe4wySDTMz48f82DcSOCYVY9ZU7aUnoptK8DaSWnT6abncsxb1Sbs9KitLS/FRUvQhM NkG+Lfv3Eceux1Y+hAfljIhcdikDAYXir89RRI4xHvQd4PyH2WGL/lJmLeBpTp1HJOOn Tx0C6XZX5fYcaOqdXeu7cAoVrWWZRG37sG+ZQAdnZ/MV8rBNU1kA3BvXGXPIfY66lp04 LzeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1733433900; x=1734038700; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PCvG1uFJ7bfIwhXq4y2fDMl/5i/DI5j9+WT4jXv9Bfo=; b=hZOK+ghag9VQwTTbpODYz2vJRami3U/jfytp2BknsbOQ934R+HWeUBClgURrCScCSG Fs0jI3BnXcCfDmtdNg8cg456pbSWb9pTLyxQNh+aRWRfvFvTjJY/fkFE9tEIXWr9TJSW 6Ay/ksplE/l4zsiZioEYzBQy8P2D1RtrOyv2gzB/gYF1PRWhK4uzgQJFgojsYQtI28yK DuRfxoVlIm9TemydMA68CYu7mNZ6tMpe6wvTBVZJXiXvLiJ3P7ylQYQclO6E4Nfvlnpt LtY6KXDQlFR87zkHP8clNVztF/Xx4nBzBCKelOvxcCRzdkm+GrjzBCp9nC6jueOqYeDD O3cQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxuKytYB95Z2cOBBE+E/vX35x2FKTtliSw3A5E7t2KJmkDDCtwM 5aOStpn8Kf2fw1DLvLlfIPcIX9qKEKsqM1RVQMtHcAjq2cSqi6A6us1LfAq2gA4= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs5XUeX98CLBDp9ArpEm07QYek0+t8K1mp6jGwoOfDwFOIy1gy89qQGFhhtdbx TYadI8Qv2sRcLQPA3xyBCl3Pgh/Qe6uFNYf78s0fOpfk5icQ1v9/La697YAqEmUc7wN4oMs6aIU lUVmV83xXBTsOk0PvDBm5kxPm6xCwJPuHZhSeApGquVUe4Hkv3XawLd3CmhyNfn386W8vs81vJh vBhBsVl9mKWeOdR88AYFvllWDVcE5c3x5IXFO8WP7Zmf08B033xxZpHs6HBxXIzi6szpJ5ZQFKL gZzyrBxmGxZBjDXJDQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFhmj0AT9hcMZk9gm9w2I7MvN3QVekpea3gzUdfhgO+7ZCtVFjTdiiwNF95Z1CinXa0fevyUw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:444b:b0:434:a815:2b5d with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-434dded670cmr6188655e9.24.1733433899849; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 13:24:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.69.223] (88-187-86-199.subs.proxad.net. [88.187.86.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-434da0dc152sm36170945e9.25.2024.12.05.13.24.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Dec 2024 13:24:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 22:24:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH-for-10.0 v2 05/13] hw/pci: Propagate bar_at_addr_0_refused to pci_root_bus_internal_init() To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , qemu-riscv@nongnu.org, Marcel Apfelbaum , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini References: <20241126112212.64524-1-philmd@linaro.org> <20241126112212.64524-6-philmd@linaro.org> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::330; envelope-from=philmd@linaro.org; helo=mail-wm1-x330.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On 5/12/24 17:44, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2024 at 11:22, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> >> Have pci_root_bus_internal_init() callers set the >> 'bar_at_addr_0_refused' argument. No logical change. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé >> --- >> hw/pci/pci.c | 11 +++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c >> index 27b66583e54..8eacb8f82fc 100644 >> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c >> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c >> @@ -529,7 +529,8 @@ static bool machine_refuses_bar_at_addr_0(void) >> >> static void pci_root_bus_internal_init(PCIBus *bus, DeviceState *parent, >> MemoryRegion *mem, MemoryRegion *io, >> - uint8_t devfn_min) >> + uint8_t devfn_min, >> + bool bar_at_addr_0_refused) >> { >> assert(PCI_FUNC(devfn_min) == 0); >> bus->devfn_min = devfn_min; >> @@ -537,7 +538,7 @@ static void pci_root_bus_internal_init(PCIBus *bus, DeviceState *parent, >> bus->address_space_mem = mem; >> bus->address_space_io = io; >> bus->flags |= PCI_BUS_IS_ROOT; >> - if (machine_refuses_bar_at_addr_0()) { >> + if (bar_at_addr_0_refused && machine_refuses_bar_at_addr_0()) { > > Should this be || rather than && ? If I understand the > intent correctly, we want to prevent a BAR at address 0 > if either: > * the MachineClass field says we don't want one > (legacy handling, eventually goes away) > * the new command line argument says we don't want one > > rather than only if *both* say "no address 0" ? Oops :) > > thanks > -- PMM