On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 05:27:50PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 11 July 2016 at 03:24, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 08:32:32PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 8 July 2016 at 04:42, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > >> > My only concern here is that the constants are named > >> > *MMU*_DATA_... whereas these are physical memory accesses not > >> > involving the MMU. I can't actually see any current users of > >> > MMUAccessType which makes me a bit confused as to what it's intended > >> > meaning was > >> > >> If you grep for MMU_DATA_LOAD/MMU_DATA_STORE/MMU_INST_FETCH > >> you'll see the uses. A lot of the softmmu code uses the > >> convention of 0=read,1=write,2=insn (which developed I > >> think historically from a bool "is_write", which you'll > >> still see in some function argument names, that was > >> augmented to handle insn-fetch separately). The enum > >> gives us some symbolic names for the constant values. > >> (There's a proposed patch somewhere to change the > >> 'int is_write' arguments to actually use the enum type.) > > > > Ah, yes, I see. Still surprisingly few, actually. > > Yeah, we didn't go through (yet) and update the legacy code, > just provided the common type so new code could use it.
Ah, yes, I see.
> > My concern about the potentially misleading name still stands.
>
> I don't mind if we want to rename it, but I don't think we want
> to have two types. This is all in the softmmu code, whether it's
> in the physical-address parts or the virtual-address parts.
Right, I agree we shouldn't have two types.
I think we should rename the existing constants, though, since it
doesn't really have anything to do with the MMU.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
