[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Template for developing a Qemu device with?PCIe?and MSI
From: |
Isaku Yamahata |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] Template for developing a Qemu device with?PCIe?and MSI-X |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:00:23 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
http://www.seabios.org/pipermail/seabios/2010-July/000796.html
I haven't found my time to respin to check PMM stuff yet.
If you give it a try, it would be appreciated.
thanks,
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:07:13PM -0500, Adnan Khaleel wrote:
> Can you point me to this patch? I found one for BAR overflow checking that you
> wrote which isn't merged with the seabios git source I downloaded from you.
> I'm
> assuming this is not the one you're talking about correct?
>
>
> ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
> From: Isaku Yamahata [mailto:address@hidden
> To: Adnan Khaleel [mailto:address@hidden
> Cc: Cam Macdonell [mailto:address@hidden, address@hidden
> Sent: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:20:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Template for developing a Qemu device with PCIe?
> and MSI-X
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:42:42PM -0500, Adnan Khaleel wrote:
> > I've tried everything you mentioned and I still get the same problem.
> The
> only
> > thing that seems to avoid that issue is if I reduce the aperture size
> from
> > 0x2000000000ull to 0x2000000ull.
>
> I suppose that Cam is seeing the same issue.
>
> Right now seabios can't handle too huge BAR due
> to overflow.
> There is a rejected patch floating around,
> but I haven't created a revised patch yet.
>
> >
> > Here is the relevant section of code:
> >
> > static const unsigned long long BAR_Regions[6][2] =
> > {
> > // len , type
> > { 0x2000000ull, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY |
> > PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64} , //BAR0,
> > { 0, 0} , // BAR1
> > { 0x2000000ull, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_IO } , //BAR2,
> > { 0, 0} , // BAR3 for MSI-X
> > { 0, 0} , // BAR4
> > { 0, 0} , // BAR5
> > };
> >
> > static int pcie_msix_initfn(PCIDevice *pci_dev)
> > {
> > PCIE_MSIX_DEVState *d = DO_UPCAST(PCIE_MSIX_DEVState, dev, pci_dev);
> > PCIBridge *br = DO_UPCAST(PCIBridge, dev, pci_dev);
> > PCIEPort *p = DO_UPCAST(PCIEPort, br, br);
> > int rc, i;
> >
> > PRINT_DEBUG("%s: PCIE MSIX Device init...\n", __FUNCTION__);
> >
> > pci_config_set_vendor_id(d->dev.config, PCIE_MSIX_VID);
> > pci_config_set_device_id(d->dev.config, PCIE_MSIX_DID);
> >
> > memcpy(d->dev.config, g_cfg_init, sizeof(g_cfg_init[0x20]));
> > d->mmio_index = cpu_register_io_memory(pcie_msix_mem_read_fn,
> > pcie_msix_mem_write_fn, d);
> >
> > int msix_mem_bar = 0; // Since its a 64bit BAR, we take up BAR0 & BAR1
> > int msix_io_bar = 2;
> > int msix_mmio_bar = 3;
> >
> > pci_register_bar(&d->dev, msix_mem_bar, BAR_Regions[msix_mem_bar][0],
> > BAR_Regions[msix_mem_bar][1], pcie_msix_mem_map);
> > pci_register_bar(&d->dev, msix_io_bar, BAR_Regions[msix_io_bar][0],
> > BAR_Regions[msix_io_bar][1], pcie_msix_io_map);
> >
> > rc = msix_init(&d->dev, d->vectors, msix_mmio_bar, 0);
> >
> > if (!rc) {
> > PRINT_DEBUG("%s: Registering Bar %i as I/O BAR\n", __FUNCTION__,
> > msix_mmio_bar);
> > pci_register_bar(&d->dev, msix_mmio_bar, msix_bar_size(&d->dev),
> > PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY, msix_mmio_map);
> > PRINT_DEBUG("%s: MSI-X initialized (%d vectors)\n", __FUNCTION__, d->
> > vectors);
> > }
> > else {
> > PRINT_DEBUG("%s: MSI-X initialization failed!\n", __FUNCTION__);
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > // Activate the vectors
> > for (i = 0; i < d->vectors; i++) {
> > msix_vector_use(&d->dev, i);
> > }
> >
> > rc = pci_pcie_cap_init(&d->dev, PCIE_MSIX_EXP_OFFSET,
> > PCI_EXP_TYPE_ENDPOINT, p->port);
> > if (rc < 0) {
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > pcie_cap_flr_init(&d->dev, &pcie_msix_flr);
> > pcie_cap_deverr_init(&d->dev);
> > pcie_cap_ari_init(&d->dev);
> > rc = pcie_aer_init(&d->dev, PCIE_MSIX_AER_OFFSET);
> > if (rc < 0) {
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > PRINT_DEBUG("%s: Init done\n", __FUNCTION__);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Another question I have is why doesn't the device show up when I try a
> cat /
> > proc/interrupts.
> >
> > linux-an84:~/AriesKernelModules/gni/aries/ghal # cat /proc/interrupts
> > CPU0
> > 0: 694 IO-APIC-edge timer
> > 1: 6 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> > 4: 753 IO-APIC-edge serial
> > 8: 1 IO-APIC-edge rtc0
> > 9: 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi acpi
> > 12: 89 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> > 14: 3522 IO-APIC-edge ata_piix
> > 15: 785 IO-APIC-edge ata_piix
> > 16: 162 IO-APIC-fasteoi eth0
> > 4344: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > 4345: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > 4346: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > 4347: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > 4348: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > 4349: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > 4350: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > 4351: 0 PCI-MSI-edge aerdrv
> > NMI: 0 Non-maskable interrupts
> > LOC: 107095 Local timer interrupts
> > RES: 0 Rescheduling interrupts
> > CAL: 0 function call interrupts
> > TLB: 0 TLB shootdowns
> > TRM: 0 Thermal event interrupts
> > THR: 0 Threshold APIC interrupts
> > SPU: 0 Spurious interrupts
> > ERR: 0
> >
> > Shouldn't there be an entry for the MSI-X device?
> >
> > Thanks for all your input.
> >
> > AK
> >
> >
> >
> > ?????????????????????????????????????
> > Probably what you want is something like
> >
> > { 0x2000000000ull, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY |
> > PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64} , //BAR0
> > { 0, 0} , //BAR1
> > // 64bit BAR occupies 2 BAR entries so that BAR1 can't be used.
> > { 0x2000000ull, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_IO } , //BAR2
> > { 0, 0} , //BAR3
> > // for MSI-X
> > { 0, 0} , //BAR4
> > { 0, 0} //BAR5
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> yamahata
>
--
yamahata
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Qemu-devel] Template for developing a Qemu device with?PCIe?and MSI-X,
Isaku Yamahata <=