On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 10:23:32AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 May 2013 04:44, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> So when *is* it a good idea to use this API? In real
> >> hardware you don't usually get a "tell me whether this
> >> a
On 25 May 2013 04:44, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> So when *is* it a good idea to use this API? In real
>> hardware you don't usually get a "tell me whether this
>> access would succeed if I did it" bus operation -- you
>> just do the oper
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:52:17AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 May 2013 09:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 23/05/2013 20:04, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> >> Shouldn't we be calling the MemoryRegionOps
> >> accepts() callback here? What about access alignment constraints
> >> and access size
On 24 May 2013 14:33, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 24/05/2013 15:27, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> On 24 May 2013 13:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> If it's okay
>>> for you, I'll send a pull request up to "memory: clean up phys_page_find"
>>> and go on with the next series.
>>
>> That's fine with me, b
Il 24/05/2013 15:27, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 24 May 2013 13:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> If it's okay
>> for you, I'll send a pull request up to "memory: clean up phys_page_find"
>> and go on with the next series.
>
> That's fine with me, but please don't forget to fix up
> the doc comment
On 24 May 2013 13:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> If it's okay
> for you, I'll send a pull request up to "memory: clean up phys_page_find"
> and go on with the next series.
That's fine with me, but please don't forget to fix up
the doc comment for memory_region_find() (see comments on
patch 6/30). You
Il 24/05/2013 12:52, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> On 24 May 2013 09:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 23/05/2013 20:04, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>>> Shouldn't we be calling the MemoryRegionOps
>>> accepts() callback here? What about access alignment constraints
>>> and access size restrictions?
>>
>>
On 2013-05-24 12:50, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 May 2013 07:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> I'll also have a use for it: replace isa_is_ioport_assigned.
>
> That seems like it's something different: it's asking
> "has some other bit of QEMU registered a handler for
> this ioport?", not "at this moment
On 24 May 2013 09:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 23/05/2013 20:04, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> Shouldn't we be calling the MemoryRegionOps
>> accepts() callback here? What about access alignment constraints
>> and access size restrictions?
>
> Yes, we should.
>
>> What if the validity of the range
On 24 May 2013 07:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> I'll also have a use for it: replace isa_is_ioport_assigned.
That seems like it's something different: it's asking
"has some other bit of QEMU registered a handler for
this ioport?", not "at this moment in time if I make
an I/O access will it succeed?" (w
On 2013-05-24 08:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-05-23 20:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 21 May 2013 11:57, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> +bool address_space_valid(AddressSpace *as, hwaddr addr, int len, bool
>>> is_write)
>>> +{
>>> +AddressSpaceDispatch *d = as->dispatch;
>>> +MemoryRegionSe
Il 23/05/2013 20:04, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> Shouldn't we be calling the MemoryRegionOps
> accepts() callback here? What about access alignment constraints
> and access size restrictions?
Yes, we should.
> What if the validity of the range
> changes between the time you asked and when you act
On 2013-05-23 20:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 May 2013 11:57, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> +bool address_space_valid(AddressSpace *as, hwaddr addr, int len, bool
>> is_write)
>> +{
>> +AddressSpaceDispatch *d = as->dispatch;
>> +MemoryRegionSection *section;
>> +int l;
>> +hwaddr p
On 21 May 2013 11:57, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> +bool address_space_valid(AddressSpace *as, hwaddr addr, int len, bool
> is_write)
> +{
> +AddressSpaceDispatch *d = as->dispatch;
> +MemoryRegionSection *section;
> +int l;
> +hwaddr page;
> +
> +while (len > 0) {
> +page =
Il 23/05/2013 16:22, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
>>> >> The old-style IOMMU lets you check whether an access is valid in a
>>> >> given DMAContext. There is no equivalent for AddressSpace in the
>>> >> memory API, implement it with a lookup of the dispatch tree.
>> >
>> > I don't love the name - "addr
On 2013-05-23 14:05, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:57:16PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> The old-style IOMMU lets you check whether an access is valid in a
>> given DMAContext. There is no equivalent for AddressSpace in the
>> memory API, implement it with a lookup of the dispa
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:57:16PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The old-style IOMMU lets you check whether an access is valid in a
> given DMAContext. There is no equivalent for AddressSpace in the
> memory API, implement it with a lookup of the dispatch tree.
I don't love the name - "address_sp
The old-style IOMMU lets you check whether an access is valid in a
given DMAContext. There is no equivalent for AddressSpace in the
memory API, implement it with a lookup of the dispatch tree.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
dma-helpers.c | 5 +
exec.c| 25
18 matches
Mail list logo
