From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] AMD IOMMU: allow command line overrides for broken IVRS tables Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:11:51 +0100 Message-ID: <521CCFC702000078000EED1D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <1831656044.20130722225004@eikelenboom.it> <51FF74E502000078000E9267@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <52011A78.2040701@amd.com> <757500547.20130815164341@eikelenboom.it> <520D0CBF02000078000EC4FF@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1182640844.20130816012228@eikelenboom.it> <33876223.20130816014116@eikelenboom.it> <520DEEFD02000078000EC76F@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <208201973.20130816094246@eikelenboom.it> <520DF8F302000078000EC7AD@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1157392160.20130816104005@eikelenboom.it> <520E0AA002000078000EC82B@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <451541998.20130816124429@eikelenboom.it> <520E422602000078000EC94D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <1834274604.20130823005128@eikelenboom.it> <521C78A602000078000EEA44@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <521C79F502000078000EEA56@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <759475415.20130827115236@eikelenboom.it> <835047997.20130827130902@eikelenboom.it> <521CB1F602000078000EEBCD@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <521CB1F602000078000EEBCD@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Sander Eikelenboom Cc: Andrew Cooper , Keir Fraser , Suravee Suthikulanit , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 27.08.13 at 14:04, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >>>> On 27.08.13 at 13:09, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: >>> Would the syntax be the same as linux ? >>> f.e. ivrs_ioapic[6]=00:14.0 for my case ? > > Yes. > >>> I'm asking because using it on the command line seems to enable the iommu >> fine (which it shouldn't without the override), but i don't seem to see the >>> "IVHD: Command line override present for IO-APIC %#x" in my xl dmesg... >> >> Hrrrmm could it be due to the fact that in my case it actually shouldn't >> override a present IVRS entry, but add a extra one ? > > Yes. Does Linux print something even in that case? Just looked at their code once more, and I can't see how they would print something in that case. Jan