From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48285) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bZ5H4-0004qq-QZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:57:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bZ5Gz-0002qP-RV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:57:01 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:44383) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bZ5Gy-0002qI-SM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:56:57 -0400 Message-ID: <1471215342.12231.73.camel@kernel.crashing.org> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:55:42 +1000 In-Reply-To: References: <1471089120.12231.48.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] monitor: Add an "xlate" command for translating a virtual address List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 19:55 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 13 August 2016 at 12:52, Benjamin Herrenschmidt > wrote: > > > > This is very handy when debugging a guest, especially when it's > > stuck on accessing some HW and the only way to figure out what > > specific piece of HW is to translate the virtual address to > > a hardware address that can then be matched with the mtree > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > Should this wrap cpu_get_phys_page_attrs_debug() instead > (and report the attributes to the user)? Looking at this... the attributes are a bit of a mess aren't they ? The requester_id is pretty much PCI specific and only useful for load/stores coming from a device (for IOMMUs), the "secure" bit seems to be an ARM thing and is an output from translation, what about "user" ? IE, it's a blend of things that are input to an access and things that are output from translate as far as I can tell ... For the monitor, I'm thinking of just printing "secure", what do you think ? Cheers, Ben.