On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 16:03, Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote: > > On 12/21/22 13:33, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 01:35, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 10:39:40AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> OK. I still think we should consistently change all the places that are > >>> accessing this data structure, though, not just half of them. > >> > >> Yes, that makes sense. Although what exactly constitutes "this data > >> structure" is a bit complex here. If we mean just the spapr specific > >> "external HPT", then there are only a few more references to it. If > >> we mean all instances of a powerpc hashed page table, then there are a > >> bunch more in the cpu target code. > > > > I had in mind "places where we write this specific array of bytes > > spapr->htab". > > > spapr_store_hpte() seems to be the most annoying part. It is used > by hcalls h_enter, h_remove, h_protect. Reworking the interface > to present pte0/pte1 as BE variables means reworking the whole > hw/ppc/spapr_softmmu.c file. That's feasible but not a small task > since the changes will root down in the target hash mmu code which > is shared by all platforms ... :/
Don't you just need to change spapr_store_hpte() to use stq_be_p() instead of stq_p() ? > spapr_hpte_set_c() are spapr_hpte_set_r() are of a different kind. That code seems to suggest we already implicitly assume that spapr->htab fields have a given endianness... thanks -- PMM
