From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v5 86/86] 440fx: fix PAM, PCI holes Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:25 +0300 Message-ID: <4E2D7825.9030200@redhat.com> References: <1311180636-17012-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <1311180636-17012-87-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4E2D6A97.9050606@codemonkey.ws> <4E2D6C45.5030308@redhat.com> <20110725131728.GD4404@redhat.com> <4E2D6F6C.5070301@redhat.com> <4E2D702F.6010400@redhat.com> <20110725133558.GH4404@redhat.com> <4E2D71F1.4090509@redhat.com> <4E2D73F3.8060507@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gleb Natapov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48001 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751178Ab1GYOFb (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:05:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4E2D73F3.8060507@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/25/2011 04:47 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 07/25/2011 08:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 07/25/2011 04:35 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> > >>> > That's the ISA TOM (15MB hole and friends). >>> > >>> Correct. What about: >>> 3.2.19. DRB[0:7] DRAM ROW BOUNDARY REGISTERS >>> >>> from 440fx spec? >>> >> >> Maybe. But we can't use that, since it ignores address line 31. >> >> (440fx supports only 1GB RAM, and we're ignoring that) > > What are we trying to do? > > Can't we just register highest RAM address under 4G to 4G as PCI > memory and call it a day? > > Do we really need a guest visible register to do this? Why not use 3.5GB and call it a day? It's safer for memory hotplug, if we ever get it. The guest will never put a PCI BAR below that anyway. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47898) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlLmm-0000Ty-0D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:05:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlLml-0005Yk-0W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:05:31 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6234) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QlLmk-0005YW-Jx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:05:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4E2D7825.9030200@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:25 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1311180636-17012-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <1311180636-17012-87-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4E2D6A97.9050606@codemonkey.ws> <4E2D6C45.5030308@redhat.com> <20110725131728.GD4404@redhat.com> <4E2D6F6C.5070301@redhat.com> <4E2D702F.6010400@redhat.com> <20110725133558.GH4404@redhat.com> <4E2D71F1.4090509@redhat.com> <4E2D73F3.8060507@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4E2D73F3.8060507@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v5 86/86] 440fx: fix PAM, PCI holes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gleb Natapov , kvm@vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2011 04:47 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 07/25/2011 08:38 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 07/25/2011 04:35 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> > >>> > That's the ISA TOM (15MB hole and friends). >>> > >>> Correct. What about: >>> 3.2.19. DRB[0:7] DRAM ROW BOUNDARY REGISTERS >>> >>> from 440fx spec? >>> >> >> Maybe. But we can't use that, since it ignores address line 31. >> >> (440fx supports only 1GB RAM, and we're ignoring that) > > What are we trying to do? > > Can't we just register highest RAM address under 4G to 4G as PCI > memory and call it a day? > > Do we really need a guest visible register to do this? Why not use 3.5GB and call it a day? It's safer for memory hotplug, if we ever get it. The guest will never put a PCI BAR below that anyway. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function