Re: [Xen-devel] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen:i386:pc_piix: create isa bridge specific to IGD passthrough

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2014/9/1 14:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 10:50:37AM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> > On 2014/8/31 16:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 09:28:50AM +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> > > > On 2014/8/28 8:56, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > +     */
> > > > > > > > > > > +    dev = pci_create_simple(bus, PCI_DEVFN(0x1f, 0),
> > > > > > > > > > > +                            "xen-igd-passthrough-isa-bridge");
> > > > > > > > > > > +    if (dev) {
> > > > > > > > > > > +        r = xen_host_pci_device_get(&hdev, 0, 0, PCI_DEVFN(0x1f,
> > > > > > > > > > > 0), 0);
> > > > > > > > > > > +        if (!r) {
> > > > > > > > > > > +            pci_config_set_vendor_id(dev->config, hdev.vendor_id);
> > > > > > > > > > > +            pci_config_set_device_id(dev->config, hdev.device_id);
> > > > > > > > Can you, instead, implement the reverse logic, probing
> > > > > > > > the card and supplying the correct device id for PCH?
> > > > > > > Here what is your so-called reverse logic as I already asked you
> > > > > > > previously? Do you mean I should list all PCHs with a combo illustrated
> > > > > > > with the vendor/device id in advance? Then look up if we can find a
> > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > Ping.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Tiejun
> > > > >
> > > > > > Could you explain this exactly? Then I can try follow-up your idea ASAP
> > > > > > if this is necessary and possible.
> > > > Michel,
> > > >
> > > > Could you give us some explanation for your "reverse logic" when you're
> > > > free?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Tiejun
> > > So future drivers will look at device ID for the card
> > > and figure out how things should work from there.
> > > Old drivers still poke at device id of the chipset for this,
> > > but maybe qemu can do what newer drivers do:
> > > look at the card and figure out what guest should do,
> > > then present the appropriate chipset id.
> > >
> > > This is based on what Jesse said:
> > >         Practically speaking, we could probably assume specific GPU/PCH combos,
> > >         as I don't think they're generally mixed across generations, though SNB
> > >         and IVB did have compatible sockets, so there is the possibility of
> > >         mixing CPT and PPT PCHs, but those are register identical as far as the
> > >         graphics driver is concerned, so even that should be safe.
> > Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for your explanation.
> >
> > > so the idea is to have a reverse table mapping GPU back to PCH.
> > > Present to guest the ID that will let it assume the correct GPU.
> > I guess you mean we should create to maintain such a table:
> >
> > [GPU Card: device_id(s), PCH: device_id]
> >
> > Then each time, instead of exposing that real PCH device id directly, qemu
> > first can get the real GPU device id to lookup this table to present a
> > appropriate PCH's device id to the guest.
> >
> > And looks here that appropriate PCH's device id is not always a that real
> > PCH's device id. Right? If I'm wrong please correct me.
> Exactly: we don't really care what the PCH ID is - we only need it
> for the guest driver to do the right thing.
Agreed.

I need to ask Allen to check if one given GPU card device id is always 
corresponding to one given PCH on both HSW and BDW currently. If yes, I 
can do this quickly. Otherwise I need some time to establish that sort 
of connection. 	
Thanks
Tiejun

> > > the problem with these tables is they are hard to keep up to date
> > Yeah. But I think currently we can just start from some modern CPU such as
> > HSW and BDW, then things could be easy.
> >
> > Allen,
> >
> > Any idea to this suggestion?
> >
> > > as new hardware comes out, but as future hardware won't need
> > > these hacks, we shall be fine.
> > Yeah.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tiejun
> >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Tiejun
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > matched PCH? If yes, what is that benefit you expect in passthrough
> > > > > > > case? Shouldn't we pass these info to VM directly in passthrough case?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel