On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:24:12PM +0200, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 3/24/10, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:05:10PM +0200, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > On 3/24/10, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:43:51PM +0200, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > > > rtl8139.c, e1000.c: need to convert ldl/stl to > > cpu_physical_memory_read/write. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see how it would help. These still get target_phys_addr_t which > > > > is per-target. Further, a ton of devices do > > > > cpu_register_physical_memory/qemu_register_coalesced_mmio. > > > > These are also per target. > > > > > > I don't know what I was eating yesterday: there are no references to > > > ldl/stl in either rtl8139 or e1000. In fact, the conversion is simple > > > for the device itself, just add a property "be". The attached patch > > > performs this part. > > > > > > But now there is a bigger problem, how to pass the property to the > > > device. It's not fair to require the user to remember to set it. > > > > > > I still don't fully understand how come e1000 cares about > > target endianness. > > It shouldn't. Maybe the real fix is to remove the byte swapping.
Presumably it's there for a reason? > > > > A simple solution would be to change all of cpu_XX functions to > > > > get a 64 bit address. This is a lot of churn, if we do this > > > > anyway we should also pass length to callbacks, this way > > > > rwhandler will get very small or go away completely. > > > > > > It's not too much effort to keep the target_phys_addr_t type. > > > > > > I don't understand - target_phys_addr_t is different for different > > targets to we will need to recompile the code for each target. > > What am I missing? > > target_phys_addr_t is 64 bit on a 64 bit host, on a 32 bit host it's > size will be either 64 or 32 bits depending on the target. So the > files are compiled once on 64 bit host, twice on 32 bit host if both > 32 and 64 bits targets are selected. How about just making it 64 bit unconditionally? How much do we save by using a 32 bit address value? -- MST
