Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 07/11] pvh/ioreq: Install handlers for ACPI-related PVH IO accesses

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 09.11.16 at 15:39, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/ioreq.c
> @@ -1380,6 +1380,12 @@ static int hvm_access_cf8(
>      return X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE;
>  }
>  
> +static int acpi_ioaccess(
> +    int dir, unsigned int port, unsigned int bytes, uint32_t *val)
> +{
> +    return X86EMUL_OKAY;

How can you return success here without doing anything, not
even setting *val in case of a read?

> @@ -1387,6 +1393,18 @@ void hvm_ioreq_init(struct domain *d)
>  
>      if ( !is_pvh_domain(d) )
>          register_portio_handler(d, 0xcf8, 4, hvm_access_cf8);
> +
> +    if ( !has_ioreq_cpuhp(d) )
> +    {
> +        /* Online CPU map, see DSDT's PRST region. */
> +        register_portio_handler(d, ACPI_CPU_MAP,
> +                                ACPI_CPU_MAP_LEN, acpi_ioaccess);
> +
> +        register_portio_handler(d, ACPI_GPE0_BLK_ADDRESS_V1,
> +                                ACPI_GPE0_BLK_LEN_V1, acpi_ioaccess);
> +        register_portio_handler(d, ACPI_PM1A_EVT_BLK_ADDRESS_V1,
> +                                ACPI_PM1A_EVT_BLK_LEN, acpi_ioaccess);
> +    }

Isn't the condition inverted?

Jan


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