Hi Jan, On 3 Jun 2016, at 16:20, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 03.06.16 at 15:26, wrote: >>>>> On 03.06.16 at 14:02, wrote: >>> or is this just some method the overwrite all registers with >>> "ffffffff" first and then set the actual value? >>> >>> [914572] xbk: 06:00.0: write request 4 bytes at 0x10 = ffffffff >>> [914574] xbk: 06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 >>> [914582] xbk: 06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 = f7a00000 >>> [914591] xbk: 06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 >>> [914599] xbk: 06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 = 10000 <---- >>> fail >> >> That's an unexpected value, indeed (but seems to match up with >> the source, so there's definitely something wrong here - this >> presumably ought to be 0xffff0000, meaning the size of that >> region is 64k). > > Mind trying out the attached patch? Many thanks for your patch!! I did try it, and it is different now (details in files attached) "best of conf_space_header" see below. I cannot really make sense of it, though. Can you? Thank you, Jürgen original: xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: write request 4 bytes at 0x10 = ffffffff xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 = f7a00000 xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 = 10000 patched: xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: write request 4 bytes at 0x10 = ffffffff xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 = f7a00000 xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 xen-pciback: 0000:06:00.0: read 4 bytes at 0x10 = ffff0000