Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/8] memory: remove old_portio usage

["Hervé Poussineau" <hpoussin@reactos.org>]

Jan Kiszka a écrit :
> On 2013-06-17 22:39, Hervé Poussineau wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka a écrit :
>>> On 2013-06-17 09:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> Il 16/06/2013 20:20, Hervé Poussineau ha scritto:
>>>>> Hervé Poussineau a écrit :
>>>>>> These proposed patches aim at removing the .old_portio member of
>>>>>> MemoryRegionOps structure, and replacing their usage by .read/.write
>>>>>> handlers.
>>>>> Ping.
>>>> Jan has patches that do something similar, so I was hoping he'd look at it.
>>>>
>>>> Jan, are you back from vacation? :)
>>> Yes, and that is the problem. ;)
>>>
>>> >From a quick glance, I'm a bit skeptical, Hervé, that your patches are
>>> addressing all corner cases like mine. Did you see
>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/210188?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>> My patches are less intrusive than yours, because they are probably less 
>> complex. They don't change subpage handling, they don't remove the 
>> register_ioport_*, and they don't move ioport handling to memory core.
>>
>> However, my patches do not add a new base address field in MemoryRegion, 
>> and also simplify cpu_in/out to be simply a call to 
>> address_space_read/write (like yours).
>>
>> I don't really care whatever way is chosen. I'm only interested to be 
>> able to put I/O address space into memory space, so I can improve PReP 
>> emulation.
> 
> Refactorings like the subpage changes are required to break up the BQL
> also for PIO dispatching. So we need the complete rework. But, of
> course, I'm open for improvement suggestions.
> 
> I'm planning to rebase my series on top of Paolo's changes soon and will
> then post. Would you mind rebasing what you need additionally on top of
> that?

Not a problem.
Moreover, with your patches, if devices registering ports with portio_* 
functions can be added in the system memory address space, it will be 
enough for me, and I'll happily drop my patches.

Hervé