qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v6 07/10] i386/pc: handle unitialized mr in pc_get_cxl_range_


From: Igor Mammedov
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/10] i386/pc: handle unitialized mr in pc_get_cxl_range_end()
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:58:06 +0200

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:21:07 +0100
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com> wrote:

> On 7/7/22 14:05, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri,  1 Jul 2022 17:10:11 +0100
> > Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> This in preparation to allow pc_pci_hole64_start() to be called early
> >> in pc_memory_init(), handle CXL memory region end when its underlying
> >> memory region isn't yet initialized.
> >>
> >> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
> >> ---
> >>  hw/i386/pc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
> >> index 8655cc3b8894..d6dff71012ab 100644
> >> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
> >> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
> >> @@ -857,6 +857,19 @@ static uint64_t pc_get_cxl_range_end(PCMachineState 
> >> *pcms)
> >>                  start = fw->mr.addr + memory_region_size(&fw->mr);
> >>              }
> >>          }
> >> +    } else {  
> > 
> >   
> >> +        hwaddr cxl_size = MiB;
> >> +
> >> +        start = pc_get_cxl_range_start(pcms);
> >> +        if (pcms->cxl_devices_state.fixed_windows) {
> >> +            GList *it;
> >> +
> >> +            start = ROUND_UP(start + cxl_size, 256 * MiB);
> >> +            for (it = pcms->cxl_devices_state.fixed_windows; it; it = 
> >> it->next) {
> >> +                CXLFixedWindow *fw = it->data;
> >> +                start += fw->size;
> >> +            }
> >> +        }  
> > 
> > /me wondering if this can replace block above that supposedly does
> > the same only using initialized cxl memory regions?
> >   
> 
> I was thinking about the same thing as of writing.
> 
> If the calculation returns the same values might as well just replace it
> as opposed to branching out similar logic.

Let's drop not needed code, so reader won't have to wonder why
the same thing is done in 2 different ways.

> 
> I can do that in v7.
> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]