Re: [PATCH] hw/acpi/cxl: Drop device-memory support from CFMWS entries

Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 23:08:31 -0700 > Dan Williams wrote: > > > While it was a reasonable idea to specify no window restricitions at the > > outset of the CXL emulation support, it turns out that in practice a > > platform will never follow the QEMU example of specifying

Re: [PATCH] hw/acpi/cxl: Drop device-memory support from CFMWS entries

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 23:08:31 -0700 Dan Williams wrote: > While it was a reasonable idea to specify no window restricitions at the > outset of the CXL emulation support, it turns out that in practice a > platform will never follow the QEMU example of specifying simultaneous > support for HDM-H and

RE: [PATCH] hw/acpi/cxl: Drop device-memory support from CFMWS entries

Dan Williams wrote: > While it was a reasonable idea to specify no window restricitions at the > outset of the CXL emulation support, it turns out that in practice a > platform will never follow the QEMU example of specifying simultaneous > support for HDM-H and HDM-D[B] in a single window. > > HD

[PATCH] hw/acpi/cxl: Drop device-memory support from CFMWS entries

While it was a reasonable idea to specify no window restricitions at the outset of the CXL emulation support, it turns out that in practice a platform will never follow the QEMU example of specifying simultaneous support for HDM-H and HDM-D[B] in a single window. HDM-D mandates extra bus cycles fo