On 12/16/14 20:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 16/12/2014 20:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Yes.
>>
>> The root of this question is what each of
>>
>> enum device_endian {
>> DEVICE_NATIVE_ENDIAN,
>> DEVICE_BIG_ENDIAN,
>> DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN,
>> };
>
> Actually, I think the root of the answer :) is that fw_cfg_read (and
> thus fw_cfg_data_mem_read) is not idempotent. The split/compose stuff
> accesses the bytes at offsets 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and composes them
> according to the endianness.
>
> In the case of fw_cfg it just retrieves 8 bytes, but in the case of host
> big endian it reads them in the "wrong" order for some reason (sorry, I
> haven't looked at this thoroughly).
I can't imagine how that would happen; fw_cfg_data_mem_read() ignores
both "addr" and "size", and fw_cfg_read() simply advances the
"cur_offset" member.
> So the solution is:
>
> 1) make fw_cfg_data_mem_ops DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN
>
> 2) make fw_cfg_data_mem_read and fw_cfg_data_mem_write call fw_cfg_read
> and fw_cfg_write SIZE times and build up a value from the lowest byte up.
Nonetheless, that's a really nice idea! I got so stuck with the
automatic splitting that I forgot about the possibility to act upon the
"size" parameter in fw_cfg_data_mem_read(). Thanks!
... Another thing that Andrew mentioned but I didn't cover in my other
email -- what about fw_cfg_ctl_mem_ops? It's currently DEVICE_NATIVE_ENDIAN.
You flipped the combined ops to LE in commit 6fdf98f2 (and, apparently,
I reviewed it). Shouldn't we do the same for the standalone selector?
Thanks
Laszlo
