On 09/18/2011 06:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-09-18 17:37, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/18/2011 03:51 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> From: Jan Kiszka<jan.kis...@siemens.com> >> >> As we register old portio regions via ioport_register, we are also >> responsible for providing the word access wrapper. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka<jan.kis...@siemens.com> >> --- >> >> Oops, was lacking a shift for word reads. >> >> memory.c | 10 ++++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c >> index b3ee232..aef4702 100644 >> --- a/memory.c >> +++ b/memory.c >> @@ -397,6 +397,11 @@ static void memory_region_iorange_read(IORange >> *iorange, >> *data = ((uint64_t)1<< (width * 8)) - 1; >> if (mrp) { >> *data = mrp->read(mr->opaque, offset + mr->offset); >> + } else if (width == 2) { >> + mrp = find_portio(mr, offset, 1, false); >> + assert(mrp); >> + *data = mrp->read(mr->opaque, offset + mr->offset) | >> + (mrp->read(mr->opaque, offset + mr->offset + >> 1)<< 8); >> } > > What about width 4?This is PIO, limited by the x86 address space to 16 bit. Will add a comment.
x86 PIO is not limited to 16 bits, just ISA, which memory.c knows nothing about.
> Why not use access_with_adjusted_size()? Because of different accessor prototypes.
Can be thunked. There is a different issue, a_w_a_s() can use small accesses to emulate large ones, but not vice versa. It needs fixing anyway.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
