Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on all hypervisor

[Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Oct 3, 2022, at 8:03 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Not my but rather PCI maintainer's call but IMHO dropping 'const' is
>> better, introducing a new global var is our 'last resort' and should be
>> avoided whenever possible. Alternatively, you can add a
>> raw_pci_ext_ops_preferred() function checking somethin within 'struct
>> hypervisor_x86' but I'm unsure if it's better.
>> 
>> Also, please check Alex' question/suggestion.
>
> Here is my take (and Ajay knows probably more than me):
>
> Looking briefly on MCFG, I do not see a clean way of using the ACPI table.
> The two options are either to use a reserved field (which who knows, might
> be used one day) or some OEM ID. I am also not familiar with
> PCI_COMMAND.MEMORY=0, so Ajay can hopefully give some answer about that.
>
> Anyhow, I understand (although not relate) to the objection for a new global
> variable. How about explicitly calling this hardware bug a “bug” and using
> the proper infrastructure? Calling it explicitly a bug may even push whoever
> can to resolve it.
>
> IOW, how about doing something along the lines of (not tested):
>

Works for me. Going forward, the intention shoud be to also clear the
bug on other x86 hypervisors, e.g. we test modern Hyper-V versions and
if MMIO works well we clear it, we test modern QEMU/KVM setups and if
MMIO works introduce a feature bit somewhere and also clear the bug in
the guest when the bit is set.

-- 
Vitaly