On 05/31/2012 05:18 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 01.06.2012, at 00:07, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 05/30/2012 06:00 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> We're passing the ram size as uint32_t, capping it to 32 bits atm. >>> Change to target_phys_addr_t (uint64_t) to make sure we have all >>> the bits. >> >> Wouldn't ram_addr_t be more appropriate? > > I never quite grasped the difference, but wasn't ram_addr_t something for the > host?
I don't fully understand QEMU's RAM handling, but from what I recall RAM is treated differently from arbitrary guest physical addresses, with a QEMU-internal contiguous address space. Guest RAM needs to be mappable by QEMU as well as the target, so ram_addr_t is 32-bit on a 32-bit host, even if target_phys_addr_t is different. But again, it was a while ago that I looked at this, and I didn't fully understand it then, so I may be missing or misremembering something. -Scott
