From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
xen-devel@lists.xen.org, wei.liu2@citrix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:08:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5745C00A.2060909@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22341.47139.700302.6960@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
On 05/25/2016 10:35 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses"):
>> Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses"):
>>> Recent changes in ACPICA (specifically, Linux commit 66b1ed5aa8dd ("ACPICA:
>>> ACPI 2.0, Hardware: Add access_width/bit_offset support for
>>> acpi_hw_write()") result in guests issuing 32-bit accesses to IO space.
>>>
>>> QEMU needs to be able to handle them.
>> I'm kind of missing something here. If the specification has recently
>> been updated to permit this, why should old hardware support it ?
>>
>> (I tried to find the Linux upstream git commit you're referring to but
>> my linux.git is up to date and it seems not to be fetching within a
>> reasonable time, so I thought I would reply now.)
> I have looked at this commit now and I am none the wiser.
>
> It says just "This patch adds access_width/bit_offset support in
> acpi_hw_write()". I also looked at the two linked messages:
> https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/48eea5e7
> https://bugs.acpica.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1240
> and none of this explains why this supported is needed in a
> our deep-frozen ancient branch.
IIUIC, the Linux/ACPICA patch makes ACPICA use correct field in ACPI's
Generic Address Structure (section 5.2.3.2 in the 6.0 spec). Before the
patch it used register's bit_width and now it will use access_size.
According to the spec access_size 0 means undefined/legacy access.
I just looked at what hvmloader provides and at least for FADT
address_size is 0. And I wonder whether ACPICA uses 4-byte-access for
these cases.
So maybe instead of trying to patch qemu-trad I should see if I can make
hvmloader provide proper access size. Let me poke at that.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-25 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-20 13:52 [PATCH qemu-traditional] ioreq: Support 32-bit default_ioport_* accesses Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-23 12:02 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-23 13:02 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-23 13:05 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-23 13:42 ` Wei Liu
2016-05-25 14:26 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 14:35 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 15:08 ` Boris Ostrovsky [this message]
2016-05-25 15:22 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 15:36 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-25 16:03 ` Jan Beulich
2016-05-25 16:09 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 16:51 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-25 16:57 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-05-26 14:00 ` Ian Jackson
2016-05-25 16:02 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5745C00A.2060909@oracle.com \
--to=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).