Re: [Xen-devel] Need help to debug win7 BSOD on IGD passthrough

["G.R." <firemeteor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> Could you remind me the comments you just mentioned?
>> The mail archive is kind of messy and I can't easily go through them.
>
> Sure, here they are:
> http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=132810779729833
> http://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=132810811429932
>
Thanks, I'll try to address them when I got time.
Actually I haven't try this out yet. But this is really a good-to-have.

But one question first -- what do you mean by "inline patch?"
Sorry if it is a silly question.

>
>> >> Jean && Ross's patch about one year ago, lost in
>> >> the devel list.
>> >
>> > Are you still talking about:
>> >
>> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-01/msg02755.html
>> > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-01/msg02754.html
>> >
>>
>> This one is about the chip reset, not the vendor cap.
>> The vendor cap fix is here:
>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-01/msg01129.html
>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-01/msg01128.html
>> So are you actually talking about the reset fix when you referred to
>> your comment above?
>
> Yes, sorry for the confusion.
>
> Regarding these two, the first one has already my ack, so it should be
> applied as far as I am concerned.
>
Actually I don't quite understand the patch description...

> The second one introduces a new function, igd_pci_read_vendor_cap, that
> returns 0 or -1 but return type is actually uint32_t. That needs to be
> fixed. Aside from that I think it is OK.

Sorry, but it seems that I failed to reference the latest patch.
Jean has one follow up that fixes that issue you mentioned -- he just
return '1' instead.
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-01/msg01290.html

But unfortunately the patch needs to be modified against the current tree.
So anyway I need to re-post.
Also, I find that the patch does not work for the linux lspci.
It seems to lack of the Caps bit in the status (0x6) register.
But according to Ross, that bit only exists in spec 2.1 and becomes
reserved in later specs.
What do you think? Do we need to provide that bit also?

Thanks,
Timothy

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel