On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 7 March 2013 10:00, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: >> Not 100% accurate. My goal here it to control (or wrap) only guest >> accesses, in the first instance via the Memory API, but other forms of >> guest access are perfectly valid as well, and PCI config space, would >> be a good example. If we are going to share code however, we will need >> to make changes PCI side, as that uint8_t with compulsory accessors is >> too verbose to be used in devices. > > We should just use the memory API. If other bits of QEMU like PCI > don't care to update their interfaces to be memory API then they > don't get to use your new features. I don't see any point in defining > a new interface at a level below the memory API for their benefit.
I'm also leaning towards memory API approach, it should be better in the long term since all devices should use that sooner or later. > > -- PMM
