RE: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 1/1] vt-d hardware check

["Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I like your change.

I put in vtd_enabled check as a after thought in my patch after thinking
I only want to check host bridge id's only for vt-d systems.

Allen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 11:21 PM
>To: Kay, Allen M; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 1/1] vt-d hardware check
>
>vtd_hw_check() clears vtd_enabled and returns ENODEV, so the 
>caller should
>be:
>
> if (!vtd_enabled)
>    return -ENODEV;
> rc = vtd_hw_check();
> if ( rc )
>    return rc;
>
>Note that the above code skips acpi_dmar_init() entirely if 
>!vtd_enabled.
>This behaviour is different from your patch but I think more sensible?
>
> -- Keir
>
>On 22/9/07 00:39, "Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This patch disables vt-d for old chipset steppings that does not have
>> compatible CPU compatible vt-d page table format.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Allen Kay <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

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