On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote:
> On 2012-02-09 09:35, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 04, 2012 at 03:51:43PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-04 13:32, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:23, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-02-04 13:12, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:02, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Helpful to understand guest configurations of things like the i440FX's
>>>>>>> PAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> memory.c | 6 ++++--
>>>>>>> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c
>>>>>>> index ee4c98a..ea4adda 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/memory.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/memory.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1608,23 +1608,25 @@ static void mtree_print_mr(fprintf_function
>>>>>>> mon_printf, void *f,
>>>>>>> ml->printed = false;
>>>>>>> QTAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(alias_print_queue, ml, queue);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> - mon_printf(f, TARGET_FMT_plx "-" TARGET_FMT_plx " (prio %d):
>>>>>>> alias %s @%s "
>>>>>>> + mon_printf(f, TARGET_FMT_plx "-" TARGET_FMT_plx " (prio %d,
>>>>>>> %s): alias %s @%s "
>>>>>>> TARGET_FMT_plx "-" TARGET_FMT_plx "\n",
>>>>>>> base + mr->addr,
>>>>>>> base + mr->addr
>>>>>>> + (target_phys_addr_t)int128_get64(mr->size) - 1,
>>>>>>> mr->priority,
>>>>>>> + mr->readonly ? "RO" : "RW",
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the reserved regions which are unreadable and unwritable
>>>>>> should be shown as well. Then the output should be a combination of
>>>>>> 'R', 'W' or neither ('-').
>>>>>
>>>>> Reserved regions are in the hand of some other device model (so far only
>>>>> the KVM kernel). That says nothing about their R/W property. If we ever
>>>>> have a reserved region that is not writable, the owner could still set
>>>>> the corresponding flag for documentation purposes.
>>>>
>>>> OK. But it's also possible for a region to have readable == false
>>>> while readonly == false, which would imply 'WO' or '-W'. That also
>>>> supports separate 'R', 'W' and '-' flags.
>>>
>>> Yep, I encoded the ROM device state as well. And this revealed a
>>> regression of the memory region conversion of the cfi02. Gave up
>>> counting how often I fixed this type of bug in the flash code.
>>
>> Is this patch ready to go? Seems fine to me but do you still want to
>> add the 'WO' output that Blue Swirl suggested?
>
> There is v2 on the list, but I removed trival from CC due to the
> discussion. Needs an ack from Blue, I think.
Okay, I missed it. Thanks for the update!
Stefan
