Re: [SeaBIOS] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 4/4] docs: update documentation considering PCIE-PCI bridge

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 08/11/17 01:31, Aleksandr Bezzubikov wrote:
> +PCIE-PCI bridge hot-plug
> +=======================
> +Guest OSes require extra efforts to enable PCIE-PCI bridge hot-plug.
> +Motivation - now on init any PCI Express root port which doesn't have
> +any device plugged in, has no free buses reserved to provide any of them
> +to a hot-plugged devices in future.
>
> +To solve this problem we reserve additional buses on a firmware level.
> +Currently only SeaBIOS is supported.
> +The way of bus number to reserve delivery is special
> +Red Hat vendor-specific PCI capability, added to the root port
> +that is planned to have PCIE-PCI bridge hot-plugged in.
>
> +Capability layout (defined in include/hw/pci/pci_bridge.h):
> uint8_t id;     Standard PCI capability header field
> uint8_t next;   Standard PCI capability header field
> uint8_t len;    Standard PCI vendor-specific capability header field
> uint8_t type;   Red Hat vendor-specific capability type
>                List of currently existing types:
>                    RESOURCE_RESERVE = 1
> uint32_t bus_res;   Minimum number of buses to reserve
> uint64_t io;           IO space to reserve
> uint32_t mem           Non-prefetchable memory to reserve
> This two fields are mutually exclusive:

[*] mark this
> uint32_t mem_pref_32;  Prefetchable memory to reserve (32-bit MMIO)
> uint64_t mem_pref_64;  Prefetchable memory to reserve (64-bit MMIO)
>
> +If any reservation field is -1 then this kind of reservation is not
> +needed and must be ignored by firmware.
>
> +mem_pref_* fields mutual exclusiveness means they cannot be -1 both.

Please drop the last sentence; it is perfectly possible that a bridge
doesn't need either 32-bit or 64-bit prefetchable MMIO reservation.
"Mutually exclusive" usually means "at most one", not "exactly one".
(E.g., think of the "mutex" construct -- in the critical section being
protected by the mutex, there can be Thread 1, Thread 2, or none of them.)

So, beyond dropping the last sentence, I suggest to replace the one
marked with [*] with the following, for clarity:

At most one of the following two fields may be set to a value
    different from -1:

With this update, for this patch:

Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek

Thanks!
Laszlo