From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen:i386:pc_piix: create isa bridge specific to IGD passthrough Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:23:55 +0800 Message-ID: <5459D08B.7040809@intel.com> References: <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> <545768CC.3000903@intel.com> <54576B5A.50005@intel.com> <54576E7F.3000901@redhat.com> <20141103131022.GB16423@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141103131022.GB16423@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Paolo Bonzini Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 > 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