Re: [Qemu-devel] subregion collisions

[Peter Maydell]

On 14 September 2013 22:31, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> Enabling the print in memory.c shows quite a lot
> of these:
> warning: subregion collision fec00000/1000 (ioapic) vs 8000000/f8000000
> (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision fed00000/400 (hpet) vs 8000000/f8000000
> (pci-hole)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 8/8 (dma-cont)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 0/8 (dma-chan)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 64/1 (i8042-cmd)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 60/1 (i8042-data)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 61/1 (elcr)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 40/4 (pit)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 70/2 (rtc)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 20/2 (pic)
> warning: subregion collision 0/80 (ich9-pm) vs 7e/2 (kvmvapic)
> warning: subregion collision b0000000/10000000 (pcie-mmcfg) vs
> 8000000/f8000000 (pci-hole)
>
> They likely work fine because the initialization order
> happens to give priority to regions which are
> registered later.
> But we really should fix these, should we not?

Yes, I think we should. Somebody needs to work out what the
correct priority order is and register things with the overlap
flag set and a suitable priority value. (This might be easier
to do if that patch for "make priorities signed rather than
unsigned" is fixed to pass code review and committed.)

-- PMM