On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:53:10AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 03.04.2012 02:51, schrieb David Gibson:
> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Am 31.03.2012 10:50, schrieb David Gibson:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:34:25AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >>
Am 03.04.2012 02:51, schrieb David Gibson:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 31.03.2012 10:50, schrieb David Gibson:
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:34:25AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 30.03.2012 11:32, schrieb Andreas Färber:
> Am 27.03.2012 04:43,
On 3 April 2012 01:51, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Yes, the issue here is under what license the file is. It's a new file,
>> so in lack of a license statement is it under GPLv2 because QEMU as a
>> whole currently is? Thus a header exp
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 09:49:12AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 31.03.2012 10:50, schrieb David Gibson:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:34:25AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> >> Am 30.03.2012 11:32, schrieb Andreas Färber:
> >>> Am 27.03.2012 04:43, schrieb David Gibson:
> diff --git a/hw/
Am 31.03.2012 10:50, schrieb David Gibson:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:34:25AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 30.03.2012 11:32, schrieb Andreas Färber:
>>> Am 27.03.2012 04:43, schrieb David Gibson:
diff --git a/hw/qdev-dma.h b/hw/qdev-dma.h
new file mode 100644
index 000..e
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:17:28PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:43:21PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
> > be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this is an
> > alias for target_ph
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:43:21PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
> be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this is an
> alias for target_phys_addr_t, but this will change when we eventually
> add support for guest v
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:34:25AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 30.03.2012 11:32, schrieb Andreas Färber:
> > Am 27.03.2012 04:43, schrieb David Gibson:
> >> A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
> >> be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this i
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:32:45AM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 27.03.2012 04:43, schrieb David Gibson:
> > A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
> > be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this is an
> > alias for target_phys_addr_t, but this wil
Am 30.03.2012 11:32, schrieb Andreas Färber:
> Am 27.03.2012 04:43, schrieb David Gibson:
>> A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
>> be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this is an
>> alias for target_phys_addr_t, but this will change when we event
Am 27.03.2012 04:43, schrieb David Gibson:
> A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
> be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this is an
> alias for target_phys_addr_t, but this will change when we eventually
> add support for guest visible IOMMUs.
>
>
Uh.. please apply? Anyone?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:43:21PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
> be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this is an
> alias for target_phys_addr_t, but this will change when we eventua
A while back, we introduced the dma_addr_t type, which is supposed to
be used for bus visible memory addresses. At present, this is an
alias for target_phys_addr_t, but this will change when we eventually
add support for guest visible IOMMUs.
There are some instances of target_phys_addr_t in the
13 matches
Mail list logo
