<html><head></head><body>Same here I have a ud5 that I would like a bios that does not need the ACS patch. <div class="gmail_quote">On September 22, 2016 8:59:57 PM PDT, Wei Xu <wexu@redhat.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <pre class="k9mail"> On 2016年09月23日 02:47, Nick Sarnie wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi again, Very much to my surprise, Gigabyte replied and sent me a fixed BIOS. The new IOMMU groups (with ACS override patch kernel commandline removed for this boot), as well as my lspci information are below. I see four messages the following messages in dmesg now: [ 0.523892] pci 0000:00:1c.0: Intel SPT PCH root port ACS workaround enabled [ 0.524031] pci 0000:00:1c.4: Intel SPT PCH root port ACS workaround enabled [ 0.524159] pci 0000:00:1c.5: Intel SPT PCH root port ACS workaround enabled [ 0.524292] pci 0000:00:1d.0: Intel SPT PCH root port ACS workaround enabled IOMMU Groups: <a href="http://pastebin.com/raw/0dcHk8Xk">http://pastebin.com/raw/0dcHk8Xk</a><br! /> lspci: <a href="http://pastebin.com/raw/1zAZuPBM">http://pastebin.com/raw/1zAZuPBM</a> </blockquote> That's cool, how did you report your issue to Gigabyte? I'd like to have a try as well. Wei <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Alex, please let me know if they missed anything else, so I can report it to them. Thanks, Nick On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Nick Sarnie <commendsarnex@gmail.com <mailto:commendsarnex@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi again, Thanks a lot for investigating. I've reported the issue to the manufacturer. Thanks, sarnex On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Alex Williamson <alex.l.williamson@gmail.com <mailto:alex.l.williamson@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sa! t, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Nick Sarnie <commendsarnex@gmail.com <mailto:commendsarnex@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Alex, The output is here: <a href="http://pastebin.com/raw/qjnpuaVr">http://pastebin.com/raw/qjnpuaVr</a> <<a href="http://pastebin.com/raw/qjnpuaVr">http://pastebin.com/raw/qjnpuaVr</a>> Ok, you need to go complain to your motherboard manufacturer, they're the ones hiding the ACS capability. PCIe capabilities always start at 0x100, the dword there is: 100: 01 00 01 22 = 0x22010001 Breaking that down, the capability at 0x100 is ID 0x0001 (AER), version 0x1, and the next capability is at 0x220. So we do the same there: 220: 19 00 01 00 = 0x00010019 Capability ID 0x0019 (Secondary PCIe), version 0x1, next capability 0x0, terminating the capability list. Per Intel documentation for the chipset (<a href="http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/100-series-chipset-datasheet-vol-2.html">http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/100-series-chipset-datasheet-vol-2.html</a> <<a href="http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/100-series-chipset-datasheet-vol-2.html">http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/chipsets/100-series-chipset-datasheet-vol-2.html</a>>), the ACS capability and control registers live at 0x144 and 0x148 respectively and we can see that you do have data here matching the default value of the capability register: 140: 00 00 00 00 0f 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ie. default value of 0x144 is 0xf. It appears that this BIOS vendor didn't connect the capability into the chain or fill in ! the capability header. The registers to do this are RW/O, ie. Read-Write-Once. IOW, the registers can only be written once, which is intended to be used by the BIOS. The capability bits themselves are RW/O, allowing vendors to expose different sets of ACS capabilities. Given that this vendor has not exposed the capability, we have no basis to believe that the default value of the register represents the real capabilities of the system and therefore we cannot assume we're able to control ACS. File a bug with the vendor or look for a BIOS update where they may have already fixed this. Also, is there any way we could move the USB controller into its own group, or remove the Ethernet and SATA controller into a seperate group? Ideally, I could pass the USB Controller in group 7 ! without the ACS patch. That's not how IOMMU groups works. See <a href="http://vfio.blogspot.com/2014/08/iommu-groups-inside-and-out.html">http://vfio.blogspot.com/2014/08/iommu-groups-inside-and-out.html</a> <<a href="http://vfio.blogspot.com/2014/08/iommu-groups-inside-and-out.html">http://vfio.blogspot.com/2014/08/iommu-groups-inside-and-out.html</a>> We aren't creating these groups arbitrarily, we base them on the information provided to use by the IOMMU driver and PCI topology features, including ACS. If we cannot determine that there is isolation between components, we must assume that they are not isolated. Your choices are to run an unsupported (and unsupportable) configuration using the ACS override patch, get your hardware vendor to fix their platform, or upgrade to better hardware with better isolation characteristics. <hr /> vfio-users mailing list vfio-users@redhat.com <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/vfio-users">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/vfio-users</a></blockquote> <hr /> vfio-users mailing list vfio-users@redhat.com <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/vfio-users">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/vfio-users</a> </pre></blockquote></div></body></html>