From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BD8221A16ED1 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l14so45332300ywk.1 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:23:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=St/WlBLd0UD4LsiQEMcPbiA7R4MJ+cxS7IJ7niVufkI=; b=G7iKVeiif5I7KGm5nbKJChYM2eCNpiMxTZd2nwXx6XMw7RuCzNu4MKY8NmNgpcWT42 DWjGFM9tkAfDpL1wF5Jq5U0uSstd+VzNRRAllN+NVH3/MltwGSmZfLTbFMspU8gVupqB lKZzJqiPuqVCid9sqjPo5uMJe2IFitLrr1QdU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=St/WlBLd0UD4LsiQEMcPbiA7R4MJ+cxS7IJ7niVufkI=; b=PAg/UBGtyNxiEX3jwHtU14Q9l2vJ7R45LkY8dZyic5gklYnOBYwtXKCAMvlFTKp3vs 9Rb94Hbn2FoSGlHjF6o3/FbK1YfKjjBqKaOaCZIqG7pakOdQrQl/2+esjGnbMc3hBh7b 42OI+SruMxj4tjacYUSqku9khC2VsKF1RJ/D/rw3pYXi1ulEFcIS+yks5QM/demlVICS tKaj2WMAtb0pY1nLp35VcMUf+d60WkomNzoDPn+GJ9/UnJCcuapae/z3HZxd6FVp9ieL GPCLnCwBHIqXiZAqRDkqbMJ+/Vd+KLUy6bxN6HacAB8gnMB46LVqRQPVWWf2k9ZfZ32b hZHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCKTtI0ZWAr7UK2eVJ5YcyX3aKT4+Fa3ndlLdT35vu1grZjJ2aI Trv46DGMy4R9B+ubr6vW0Ko0CSKYXR6P X-Received: by 10.129.74.214 with SMTP id x205mr19358866ywa.50.1496175800035; Tue, 30 May 2017 13:23:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Vladimir Olovyannikov References: <4220315aed43c05b37b1b71a9eff432e@mail.gmail.com> <1dbbb04c-b725-d9bb-0300-283029538588@redhat.com> <8e9711a0244e9cf9d1bf752f638e42dd@mail.gmail.com> <4b898f0d-dbbf-20ea-120e-927ebb786b35@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4b898f0d-dbbf-20ea-120e-927ebb786b35@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGJgBaRYALxe2tiJNyoWDxrDGFkmQCscivxAkejEUYCTgbW/QJnIa2NomK54cA= Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:23:18 -0700 Message-ID: To: Laszlo Ersek , edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: Using a generic PciHostBridgeDxe driver for a multi-PCIe-domain platform X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 20:22:21 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > -----Original Message----- > From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] > Sent: May-30-17 1:17 PM > To: Vladimir Olovyannikov; edk2-devel@lists.01.org > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel > Subject: Re: [edk2] Using a generic PciHostBridgeDxe driver for a > multi-PCIe- > domain platform > > On 05/30/17 21:04, Vladimir Olovyannikov wrote: > > > So basically my PciHostBridgeLib should treat hostbridges as > > rootbridges with different segments in this case? > > In my opinion, yes. > > I would actually put it as > > treat the set of sole root bridges on all the host bridges as multiple > root bridges on a single host bridge, just with different segment > numbers > > The separate segment numbers should be mapped to the separate ECAM > windows in your PciSegmentLib instance, in my opinion. OK, got it. Thanks a lot for your help! > > Thanks, > Laszlo