On 07/12/2015 22:53, Andrew Baumann wrote:
>>> I think those should be fixed by modifying lan9118_*_mem_ops and
>>> adding .valid.{min,max}_access_size. Not for 2.5, however.
>>> (Probably these patches should also be 2.6 + qemu-stable rather
>>> than 2.5).
> Just to clarify: would you guys like me to prepare such a patch?
No, it's not necessary.
Paolo
> I'm
> not familiar with the memory op APIs, and don't have a good setup for
> testing this device emulation any more (and certainly not in 16-bit
> mode!), so would prefer to defer to someone else.
>
> BTW, I also see no great urgency for these patches. They're minor
> fixes, and it would be good to have them in, but it's certainly not a
> regression as the code has been that way for ages.
