Re: Re: [Xen-users] VT-D RMRR is incorrect

> (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:486: found ACPI_DMAR_RMRR
> (XEN) [VT-D]dmar.c:376: RMRR error: base_addr bf7dc000 end_address
> bf7dbfff


This is a shot-in-the-dark guess:
Is there some way to treat an entry like this as if it wasn't there at all?

Theory: If some BIOS programmer set aside two records to be used for various
needs, and then on boot detected that one of them wasn't needed (say,
integrated graphics not present, so 0 MB reserved?), perhaps said BIOS
programmer would just set the range to be 0 bytes, rather than go through
the effort to remove the entire record? What could go wrong if the parser
just treated entries mapping 0 byte ranges (like this one) as if they didn't
exist?

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/VT-D-RMRR-is-incorrect-tp22005500p22423800.html
Sent from the Xen - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:	[Xen-users] Unsubscribe, chintalvady raghavendran
Next by Date:	[Xen-users] xm commands hang when a HVM guest is running, Sebastian Reitenbach
Previous by Thread:	[Xen-users] Unsubscribe, chintalvady raghavendran
Next by Thread:	Re: Re: [Xen-users] VT-D RMRR is incorrect, tmoore
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]