On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:29:18PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 07/14/2010 03:13 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
>> Well, ok, the function name needs fixing too. However I think the only thing
>> missing from the current API is that it does not provide a way to determine
>> which device is performing the access.
>
> I agree with Paul.
>
> The right approach IMHO is to convert devices to use bus-specific
> functions to access memory. The bus specific functions should have a
> device argument as the first parameter.
If this means a seperate interface for device dma accesses and not fold
that functionality into the cpu_physical_memory* interface I agree too :-)
Joerg
