From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LpQw2-0001gl-LQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:42:38 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LpQvx-0001et-TZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:42:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33945 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LpQvx-0001ed-IX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:42:33 -0400 Received: from belushi.uits.indiana.edu ([129.79.1.188]:42725) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LpQvx-0007PP-57 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:42:33 -0400 Received: from mail-relay.iu.edu (candy.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.1.201]) by belushi.uits.indiana.edu (8.14.2/8.13.8/IU Messaging Team) with ESMTP id n32HgVT1000358 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:42:31 -0400 Received: from [129.79.35.119] (nibbler.dlib.indiana.edu [129.79.35.119]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail-relay.iu.edu (8.14.2/8.13.8/IU Messaging Team Submission) with ESMTP id n32HgUx9025798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:42:31 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PATCH/RFC: PCI memory mapping From: Brian Wheeler In-Reply-To: References: <1238684238.18745.17.camel@nibbler.dlib.indiana.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:42:30 -0400 Message-Id: <1238694150.18745.122.camel@nibbler.dlib.indiana.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 20:32 +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 4/2/09, Brian Wheeler wrote: > > [first off, if there's an easier way to do this, let me know!] > > > > This patch adds an address mapping function to the PCI bus so the host > > chipset can remap PCI generated addresses to the appropriate physical > > addresses. > > This discussion has come up many, many times, but finally the design > was settled to the current dma API. It supports resolving guest > addresses to host pointers, so that part should be extended instead > of adding new functionality. We want (one day) zero copy DMA even with > IOMMU. > > Is there documentation somewhere?