From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpVf1-0005Ig-S1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:08:35 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpVf0-0005IR-F8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:08:35 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpVf0-0005IO-CU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:08:34 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IpVf0-0002M6-1B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:08:34 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] sparc32 boot mode flag fix Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:08:29 +0000 References: <472FD561.7020006@earthlink.net> <200711062039.12196.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711062108.29729.paul@codesourcery.com> 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 Cc: Blue Swirl > > IIUC enabling/disabling boot mode is no different to and other VM change. > > If the virtual->physical mapping happens to be the same then it's > > perfectly ok to reuse the TB. > > Not in this case: in boot mode, physical and virtual address 0 > generates TBs from PROM code. How is this different to using the MMU to map the PROM at virtual address zero? I see exactly one use of MMU_BM. It simply hard-wires a particular virtual->physical address mapping. Paul