WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

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>