On 01/04/2012 05:33 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 4 January 2012 22:09, Anthony Liguori<anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
target_phys_addr_t should exist IMHO in the device model code.
(I assume "should not" ?)
Yes, sorry.
I think it
would be more useful to introduce a hw_addr, fix it at u64, make the device
model and memory API use that, and then make it so we didn't do the
silliness around libhw32/libhw64.
A lot of the usage of target_phys_addr_t in hw/ is actually not
handling addresses at all, but merely offsets into device IO regions
(ie as parameters to device read/write functions)...
Exactly, which is why using target_phys_addr_t (and subsequently building the
device twice) doesn't make a lot of sense.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
-- PMM
