qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] Use the correct mask to size the PCI option


From: Gleb Natapov
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] Use the correct mask to size the PCI option ROM BAR.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:17:11 +0200

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:11:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 04:04:25PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:51:12PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:29:25PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:20:27PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Right. And there's another bug that I see and that is that size for 
> > > > > I/O
> > > > > BAR was calculated incorrectly: val & ~0xf is wrong for I/O as the 
> > > > > size
> > > > > could be 4 bytes.  So here's a patch that addresses all 3 issues:
> > > > > Ack?
> > > > > 
> > > > Pleas do whatever spec recommends and use 0xffffffff to size the BAR.
> > > 
> > > What we do is equivalent: since next thing we override the BAR value,
> > > there's no reason for the save/restore dance.  But if you like it this
> > That what spec says if you are not trying to interpret it too hard.
> > And simple is always better.
> 
> Implementation note is not a recommentation, just one way to do things.
Agree. But I prefer to use a way recommended by spec. It much less
likely to break.

> We don't need to restore old BAR so no reason to do this, but
We need to restore lower bits.

> I won't lose sleep if we do this either. So go ahead.
> 
> > 
> > > way, OK. Send a patch. Note this applies to I/O and memory only,
> > > ROM has to be sized the way I coded it.
> > > 
> > > > Specs says this, linux does this, lets not be different.
> > > 
> > > BTW, note that what linux does for ROM is incorrect:
> > > the implementation note you cite only applies to I/O and memory BARs.
> > > I'll send a patch to lkml when I have the time.
> > > 
> > It does mask = type ? ~PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_ENABLE : ~0; so it definitely
> > treats ROM specially, You may argue that it shouldn't set bits 1-10
> > though.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > The patch that currently in KVM bios (the one I've sent to seabios
> > initially) uses the same technique to size the BAR as Linux kernel. The only
> > thing missing is restoring of old value.
> 
> That, too. Also let's use symbolic constants, and fix size math:
> (val & ~0xf) is wrong for both ROM and I/O.
> 
0xf fix should be really in a separate patch.

> > > > > 
> > > > > ---->
> > > > > 
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] seabios: fix low bits in ROM and I/O sizing
> > > > > 
> > > > > This cleans up handling of low bits during BAR sizing,
> > > > > to match PCI spec requirements, and to use symbolic
> > > > > constants from pci_regs.h
> > > > > 
> > > > > Issues fixed:
> > > > > For ROM BARs, bit 0 is writeable (enable bit), which we not
> > > > > only don't want to set, but it will stick and make us think
> > > > > it's an I/O port resource.
> > > > > Further, PCI spec defines the following bits as reserved:
> > > > > - bit 1 in I/O BAR
> > > > > - bits 10:1 in ROM BAR
> > > > > and we should be careful and preserve any values there.
> > > > > Bits 3:2 in I/O BAR might be writeable, so it
> > > > > is wrong to mask them when calculating BAR size.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Spec references:
> > > > > See 6.2.5.1 for I/O and memory, and 6.2.5.2 for ROM,
> > > > > 6.1 for reserved bit handling;
> > > > > pages 225, 228 and 214 in PCI spec revision 3.0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > See also Qemu pcbios commit 6ddb9f5c742b2b82b1755d7ec2a127f6e20e3806
> > > > > 
> > > > > Original-by: Gleb Natapov <address@hidden>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden>
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/src/pciinit.c b/src/pciinit.c
> > > > > index 7d2ea00..f9ebd61 100644
> > > > > --- a/src/pciinit.c
> > > > > +++ b/src/pciinit.c
> > > > > @@ -136,16 +136,23 @@ static void pci_bios_init_device(u16 bdf)
> > > > >          /* default memory mappings */
> > > > >          for (i = 0; i < PCI_NUM_REGIONS; i++) {
> > > > >              int ofs;
> > > > > -            u32 val, size;
> > > > > -
> > > > > +            u32 val, mask, size;
> > > > >              if (i == PCI_ROM_SLOT)
> > > > >                  ofs = PCI_ROM_ADDRESS;
> > > > >              else
> > > > >                  ofs = PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + i * 4;
> > > > > -            pci_config_writel(bdf, ofs, 0xffffffff);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +            val = pci_config_readl(bdf, ofs);
> > > > > +            if (i == PCI_ROM_SLOT)
> > > > > +             mask = PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK;
> > > > > +            else if (val & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_IO)
> > > > > +                mask = PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_IO_MASK;
> > > > > +            else
> > > > > +                mask = PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
> > > > > +            pci_config_writel(bdf, ofs, val | mask);
> > > > >              val = pci_config_readl(bdf, ofs);
> > > > >              if (val != 0) {
> > > > > -                size = (~(val & ~0xf)) + 1;
> > > > > +                size = (~(val & mask)) + 1;
> > > > >                  if (val & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_IO)
> > > > >                      paddr = &pci_bios_io_addr;
> > > > >                  else if (size >= 0x04000000)
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 1.6.5.rc2
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > >                         Gleb.
> > 
> > --
> >                     Gleb.

--
                        Gleb.




reply via email to

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