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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4A6C4CEC9 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:17:11 +0000 (UTC) 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 mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1447C2171F for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:17:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1447C2171F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:46012 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iADLy-00089F-5b for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:17:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42450) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iADGU-000486-8X for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:11:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iADGQ-0005zs-TP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:11:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58944) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iADGQ-0005yr-NJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:11:26 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90F85C060202; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:11:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.2.182]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CED752D2; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:11:21 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov To: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <20190917151121.41a199dc@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <8ed1ab55-d5ee-9703-dd28-cf50fbda5408@redhat.com> References: <20190905154925.30478-1-imammedo@redhat.com> <20190910175841.176b26e4@redhat.com> <8ed1ab55-d5ee-9703-dd28-cf50fbda5408@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:11:25 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [edk2-devel] [PATCH] q35: lpc: allow to lock down 128K RAM at default SMBASE address X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: yingwen.chen@intel.com, devel@edk2.groups.io, phillip.goerl@oracle.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, alex.williamson@redhat.com, jiewen.yao@intel.com, jun.nakajima@intel.com, michael.d.kinney@intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, rfc@edk2.groups.io, joao.m.martins@oracle.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 19:30:46 +0200 "Laszlo Ersek" wrote: > On 09/10/19 17:58, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:15:44 +0200 > > Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > [...] > > > It looks like fwcfg smi feature negotiation isn't reusable in this case. > > I'd prefer not to add another device just for another SMI feature > > negotiation/activation. > > I thought it could be a register on the new CPU hotplug controller that > we're going to need anyway (if I understand correctly, at least). If we don't have to 'park' hotplugged CPUs, then I don't see a need for an extra controller. > But: > > > How about stealing reserved register from pci-host similar to your > > extended TSEG commit (2f295167 q35/mch: implement extended TSEG sizes)? > > (Looking into spec can (ab)use 0x58 or 0x59 register) > > Yes, that should work. > > In fact, I had considered 0x58 / 0x59 when looking for unused registers > for extended TSEG configuration: > > http://mid.mail-archive.com/d8802612-0b11-776f-b209-53bbdaf67515@redhat.com > > So I'm OK with this, thank you. Thanks for the tip! ... patches with a stolen register are on the way to mail-list.