The code for working out the base address of a 64-bit BAR currently puts
the two halves together in the wrong order and leaves the type bits in
the resulting value. It also treats PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 as an
flag rather than an enumeration value. This patch fixes these issues.
Signed-off-by: Neil Turton <nturton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff -r 810d8c3ac992 xen/arch/x86/msi.c
--- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c Thu May 08 16:58:33 2008 +0100
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c Wed May 14 13:44:34 2008 +0100
@@ -521,17 +521,20 @@ static u64 pci_resource_start(struct pci
static u64 pci_resource_start(struct pci_dev *dev, u8 bar_index)
{
u64 bar_base;
+ u32 reg_val;
u8 bus = dev->bus;
u8 slot = PCI_SLOT(dev->devfn);
u8 func = PCI_FUNC(dev->devfn);
- bar_base = pci_conf_read32(bus, slot, func,
- PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + 4 * bar_index);
- if ( bar_base & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 )
- {
- bar_base <<= 32;
- bar_base += pci_conf_read32(bus, slot, func,
- PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + 4 * (bar_index + 1));
+ reg_val = pci_conf_read32(bus, slot, func,
+ PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + 4 * bar_index);
+ bar_base = reg_val & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_MASK;
+ if ( ( reg_val & PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_MASK ) ==
+ PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_MEM_TYPE_64 )
+ {
+ reg_val = pci_conf_read32(bus, slot, func,
+ PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0 + 4 * (bar_index + 1));
+ bar_base |= ((u64)reg_val) << 32;
}
return bar_base;
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|