qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Add PCI memory BAR in addition to PIO B


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: Add PCI memory BAR in addition to PIO BAR
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:32:54 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.13

On 11/01/2011 07:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 05:20:06PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/30/2011 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Currently, virtio devices are usually presented to the guest as an
emulated PCI device, virtio_pci.  Although the actual IO operations
are done through system memory, the configuration of the virtio device
is done through the one PCI IO space BAR that virtio_pci presents.

But PCI IO space (aka PIO) is deprecated for modern PCI devices, and
on some systems with many PCI domains accessing PIO space can be
problematic.  For example on the existing PowerVM implementation of
the PAPR spec, PCI PIO access is not supported at all.  We're hoping
that our KVM implementation will support PCI PIO (once we support PCI
at all), but it will probably have some irritating limitations.

This patch, therefore, extends the virtio_pci device to have a PCI
memory space (MMIO) BAR as well as the IO BAR.  The MMIO BAR contains
exactly the same registers, in exactly the same layout as the existing
PIO BAR.

Because the PIO BAR is still present, existing guest drivers should
still work fine.  With this change in place, future guest drivers can
check for an MMIO BAR and use that if present (falling back to PIO
when possible to support older qemu versions).

Signed-off-by: David Gibson<address@hidden>

Seems harmless for QEMU, so applied.  You should update the
virtio-pci spec too.

Ugh, sorry.  This is the old version of the patch which breaks when
you actually use it because it attempts to give proxy->bar two
different parents.  I have a new version which does it correctly.

So, do you want to revert and reapply, or should I just make a fix
patch?

I'll revert.  Thanks.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]