|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Ping: [PATCH] xen/pass-through: ROM BAR handling adjustments
Ping?
>>> On 15.05.15 at 14:41, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Expecting the ROM BAR to be written with an all ones value when sizing
> the region is wrong - the low bit has another meaning (enable/disable)
> and bits 1..10 are reserved. The PCI spec also mandates writing all
> ones to just the address portion of the register.
>
> Use suitable constants also for initializing the ROM BAR register field
> description.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> --- a/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
> +++ b/hw/xen/xen_pt.c
> @@ -248,7 +248,9 @@ static void xen_pt_pci_write_config(PCID
>
> /* check unused BAR register */
> index = xen_pt_bar_offset_to_index(addr);
> - if ((index >= 0) && (val > 0 && val < XEN_PT_BAR_ALLF) &&
> + if ((index >= 0) && (val != 0) &&
> + (((index != PCI_ROM_SLOT) ?
> + val : (val | (uint32_t)~PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK)) !=
> XEN_PT_BAR_ALLF) &&
> (s->bases[index].bar_flag == XEN_PT_BAR_FLAG_UNUSED)) {
> XEN_PT_WARN(d, "Guest attempt to set address to unused Base Address
> "
> "Register. (addr: 0x%02x, len: %d)\n", addr, len);
> --- a/hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c
> +++ b/hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c
> @@ -726,8 +726,8 @@ static XenPTRegInfo xen_pt_emu_reg_heade
> .offset = PCI_ROM_ADDRESS,
> .size = 4,
> .init_val = 0x00000000,
> - .ro_mask = 0x000007FE,
> - .emu_mask = 0xFFFFF800,
> + .ro_mask = ~PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK & ~PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_ENABLE,
> + .emu_mask = (uint32_t)PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK,
> .init = xen_pt_bar_reg_init,
> .u.dw.read = xen_pt_long_reg_read,
> .u.dw.write = xen_pt_exp_rom_bar_reg_write,
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |