From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.11847.1687271269249503380 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 07:27:49 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=ULYiUceF; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.129.124, mailfrom: kraxel@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1687271264; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FQ83z915wNSajh1as96DEZrhLjmgHeNouz0cklY+1js=; b=ULYiUceFXHti3WWtXDxwTV2YzejnTTPJg6mJ4R7gv4xdt6ZCmRDEutlhNDrv6OoNzy3fVA v4QSG2Mj0+1jICPaa0SCfk7I1JYBPac5LPLgIWWdG4GJiEl9qA8rYkCs12my9JbshQ9jzp s6lhdeRIayRFB3nI0FY5anIwp6NOlzg= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-665-4FDu_4QtNguKpSMP3hcK4Q-1; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 10:27:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4FDu_4QtNguKpSMP3hcK4Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A38F68EE586; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.192.126]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743A0112132E; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EAC3B1803082; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 16:24:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 16:24:10 +0200 From: "Gerd Hoffmann" To: devel@edk2.groups.io, kallol.biswas@nutanix.com Cc: Pritam Chatterjee , Jiewen Yao , Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] uefi VM and IO window overlap issue Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 07:27:37PM +0000, Kallol Biswas [C] wrote: > Hi, > We have been observing an issue that IO BARs can't be claimed due to resource > conflict. > > [ 0.457693] pci 0000:00:1d.0: can't claim BAR 4 [io 0x92a0-0x92bf]: address conflict with PCI Bus 0000:01 [io 0x9000-0x9fff] > [ 0.457705] pci 0000:00:1d.1: can't claim BAR 4 [io 0x9280-0x929f]: address conflict with PCI Bus 0000:01 [io 0x9000-0x9fff] > [ 0.457715] pci 0000:00:1d.2: can't claim BAR 4 [io 0x9260-0x927f]: address conflict with PCI Bus 0000:01 [io 0x9000-0x9fff] > [ 0.457743] pci 0000:00:1f.2: can't claim BAR 4 [io 0x9240-0x925f]: address conflict with PCI Bus 0000:01 [io 0x9000-0x9fff] > [ 0.457754] pci 0000:00:1f.3: can't claim BAR 4 [io 0x9200-0x923f]: address conflict with PCI Bus 0000:01 [io 0x9000-0x9fff] > > > Please see the discussion thread: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg133740.html > > The root of the problem is that OVMF does not take into account the limit register's granularity (limit) of a bridge, > and programs EPs with overlapping IO ranges in a different bus. > > Should we fix the issue in the OVMF? IMHO yes. https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/96645 Jiewen suggested to fix it somewhere in PCI code instead. No response from the PCI maintainers on that comment. Jiewen, Ard? How move forward with that? take care, Gerd