On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:09:07 -0600 Mitchell Augustin <mitchell.augustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions! > > > The calling convention of __pci_read_base() is already changing if we're having the caller disable decoding > > The way I implemented that in my initial patch draft[0] still allows > for __pci_read_base() to be called independently, as it was > originally, since (as far as I understand) the encode disable/enable > is just a mask - so I didn't need to remove the disable/enable inside > __pci_read_base(), and instead just added an extra one in > pci_read_bases(), turning the __pci_read_base() disable/enable into a > no-op when called from pci_read_bases(). In any case... > > > I think maybe another alternative that doesn't hold off the console would be to split the BAR sizing and resource processing into separate steps. > > This seems like a potentially better option, so I'll dig into that approach. > > > Providing some additional info you requested last week, just for more context: > > > Do you have similar logs from that [hotplug] operation > > Attached [1] is the guest boot output (boot was quick, since no GPUs > were attached at boot time) I think what's happening here is that decode is already disabled on the hot-added device (vs enabled by the VM firmware on cold-plug), so in practice it's similar to your nested disable solution. Thanks, Alex
