Cao jin writes:
> Hi Markus,
> sorry for replying so late, I am stucked by other tasks for a while.
>
> On 04/12/2016 07:50 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>
>> Examine how it uses msi_init(). That's how we give a PCI device
>> capability MSI. If the device model
Hi Markus,
sorry for replying so late, I am stucked by other tasks for a while.
On 04/12/2016 07:50 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Examine how it uses msi_init(). That's how we give a PCI device
capability MSI. If the device model treats msi_init() failure as fatal,
it doesn't have a
Marcel Apfelbaum writes:
> On 04/10/2016 12:38 PM, Cao jin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/10/2016 04:20 PM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I'll let Markus to continue the review, it brings very valuable
>>> information,
>>> I will only try to answer the questions below.
>>>
Cao jin writes:
> Hi
>
> On 04/08/2016 04:44 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/hw/ide/ich.c b/hw/ide/ich.c
>>> index 0a13334..db4fdb5 100644
>>> --- a/hw/ide/ich.c
>>> +++ b/hw/ide/ich.c
>>> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static void pci_ich9_ahci_realize(PCIDevice
On 04/11/2016 06:00 PM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
2). If user doesn`t order msi on(so device have msi on by default),
when msi_init returns -ENOTSUP, I am ok with Markus`s suggestion:
*caller should silently switch to the non-MSI variant*
But now the condition is, qemu can`t distinguish
On 04/10/2016 12:38 PM, Cao jin wrote:
On 04/10/2016 04:20 PM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
Hi,
I'll let Markus to continue the review, it brings very valuable
information,
I will only try to answer the questions below.
Several questions on this topic:
1. How to confirm whether a device model
On 04/10/2016 04:20 PM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
Hi,
I'll let Markus to continue the review, it brings very valuable
information,
I will only try to answer the questions below.
Several questions on this topic:
1. How to confirm whether a device model has non-MSI variant? AFAICT,
it is these
On 04/09/2016 03:19 PM, Cao jin wrote:
Hi
On 04/08/2016 04:44 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
diff --git a/hw/ide/ich.c b/hw/ide/ich.c
index 0a13334..db4fdb5 100644
--- a/hw/ide/ich.c
+++ b/hw/ide/ich.c
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static void pci_ich9_ahci_realize(PCIDevice *dev, Error
**errp)
/*
On 04/09/2016 08:19 PM, Cao jin wrote:
Hi
Several questions on this topic:
1. How to confirm whether a device model has non-MSI variant? AFAICT, it
is these who have msi property.
2. For those have non-MSI variant devices(have msi property), as I see
in the code, they all have it on by
Hi
On 04/08/2016 04:44 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
diff --git a/hw/ide/ich.c b/hw/ide/ich.c
index 0a13334..db4fdb5 100644
--- a/hw/ide/ich.c
+++ b/hw/ide/ich.c
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static void pci_ich9_ahci_realize(PCIDevice *dev, Error
**errp)
/* Although the AHCI 1.3 specification
Cao jin writes:
> Add param Error **errp, and change pci_add_capability() to
> pci_add_capability2(), because pci_add_capability() report error, and
> msi_init() is widely used in realize(), so it is not suitable for realize()
Suggest:
pci: Convert msi_init() to
11 matches
Mail list logo