From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42599)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QMyqw-0004CA-NE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 04:45:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QMyqv-00005c-IV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 04:45:06 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13274)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QMyqv-00005H-9f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 May 2011 04:45:05 -0400
Message-ID: <4DD4D88B.3070101@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 11:44:59 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4DD3C5B9.1080908@redhat.com> <4DD3D236.90708@siemens.com>
	<4DD3D95E.2060105@redhat.com> <4DD3E1B3.3020405@siemens.com>
	<BANLkTimYH3-FkVQfdOXO+at2G0NhX-UaVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD3E610.1080201@siemens.com> <4DD4199E.2000702@codemonkey.ws>
	<4DD41DBB.2020108@web.de> <20110519082644.GC28399@redhat.com>
	<4DD4D53F.1090108@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <4DD4D53F.1090108@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Memory API
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 05/19/2011 11:30 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>
> >>  That's not that simple. We need to tell apart:
> >>   - if a cpu issued the request, and which one =>  forward to APIC
> >  And cpu mode may affect where access is forwarded to. If cpu is in SMM
> >  mode access to frame buffer may be forwarded to a memory (depends on
> >  chipset configuration).
>
> So we have a second use case for CPU-local I/O regions?
>
> I wonder if only a single CPU can enter SMM or if all have to. Right now
> only the first CPU can switch to that mode, and that affects the
> behaviour of the chipset /wrt SMRAM mapping. Is that another hack?

It's a hack.  SMM is a per-cpu setting.  Effectively it's another 
address pin - it changes the meaning of (potentially) all addresses.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function