| Message ID | 1481585316-31612-4-git-send-email-lvivier@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
A short patch description would be nice here. On 13.12.2016 00:28, Laurent Vivier wrote: > Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com> > --- > tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c b/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c > index 1e5d015..2043f1e 100644 > --- a/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c > +++ b/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c > @@ -193,8 +193,8 @@ QPCIBus *qpci_init_spapr(QGuestAllocator *alloc) > ret->pio.size = SPAPR_PCI_IO_WIN_SIZE; > > /* 32-bit portion of the MMIO window is at PCI address 2..4 GiB */ > - ret->mmio32_cpu_base = SPAPR_PCI_BASE + SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; > - ret->mmio32.pci_base = 0x80000000; /* 2 GiB */ > + ret->mmio32_cpu_base = SPAPR_PCI_BASE; > + ret->mmio32.pci_base = SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; > ret->mmio32.size = SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; Not sure whether it is really right to use SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE for the pci_base? I mean, the WIN_SIZE could also be 1G for example, but the base could still be at 2G ? IMHO it's better to keep the old value for pci_base here. Thomas
On 13/12/2016 09:46, Thomas Huth wrote: > A short patch description would be nice here. > > On 13.12.2016 00:28, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c b/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c >> index 1e5d015..2043f1e 100644 >> --- a/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c >> +++ b/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c >> @@ -193,8 +193,8 @@ QPCIBus *qpci_init_spapr(QGuestAllocator *alloc) >> ret->pio.size = SPAPR_PCI_IO_WIN_SIZE; >> >> /* 32-bit portion of the MMIO window is at PCI address 2..4 GiB */ >> - ret->mmio32_cpu_base = SPAPR_PCI_BASE + SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; >> - ret->mmio32.pci_base = 0x80000000; /* 2 GiB */ >> + ret->mmio32_cpu_base = SPAPR_PCI_BASE; >> + ret->mmio32.pci_base = SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; >> ret->mmio32.size = SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; > > Not sure whether it is really right to use SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE for > the pci_base? I mean, the WIN_SIZE could also be 1G for example, but the > base could still be at 2G ? IMHO it's better to keep the old value for > pci_base here. in hw/ppc/spapr.c, we have: *mmio32 = SPAPR_PCI_BASE + (index + 1) * SPAPR_PCI_MEM32_WIN_SIZE; So I think it's logic to have the PCI base at SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE. Thanks for your review, Laurent
diff --git a/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c b/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c index 1e5d015..2043f1e 100644 --- a/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c +++ b/tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c @@ -193,8 +193,8 @@ QPCIBus *qpci_init_spapr(QGuestAllocator *alloc) ret->pio.size = SPAPR_PCI_IO_WIN_SIZE; /* 32-bit portion of the MMIO window is at PCI address 2..4 GiB */ - ret->mmio32_cpu_base = SPAPR_PCI_BASE + SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; - ret->mmio32.pci_base = 0x80000000; /* 2 GiB */ + ret->mmio32_cpu_base = SPAPR_PCI_BASE; + ret->mmio32.pci_base = SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; ret->mmio32.size = SPAPR_PCI_MMIO32_WIN_SIZE; ret->bus.pio_alloc_ptr = 0xc000;
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com> --- tests/libqos/pci-spapr.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)