Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [RFC] Extended I/O port space support

>>>>> "Tristan" == Tristan Gingold <tgingold@xxxxxxx> writes:

Tristan> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:34:01PM -0600, Alex Williamson
Tristan> wrote:
>> Next on my TODO list for this is driver domains.  This is where it
>> might get complicated.  Somehow I need to make the driver domain
>> aware that a PCI bus makes use of a different set of I/O port
>> ranges.  This won't work well with the virtual PCI mappings that
>> present the guest with all PCI devices on the same bus.  I think
>> I'm going to need to create a new topology that creates a virtual
>> bus per physical bus, but I haven't dug too deeply there yet.
>> Suggestions?
Tristan> This is certainly the right way to do it, but you also have
Tristan> to specify to the driver domain the io space base (although
Tristan> it can be remapped).

First thing that sprung to mind when I read Alex's posting was: does
anybody actually use IO-ports on ia64 anymore? I thought we managed to
effectively eliminate them?

Cheers,
Jes


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

[Xen-ia64-devel] Gentlemen, please start your engines! :-), Jes Sorensen

Next by Date:

Re: [PATCH] add paddr_t definition to compile gnttab.c (was Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [RFC] gnttab unmap_and_replace), Jes Sorensen

Previous by Thread:

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [RFC] Extended I/O port space support, Alex Williamson

Next by Thread:

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [RFC] Extended I/O port space support, Alex Williamson

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]