From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L7Yl7-000599-1k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:10:01 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L7Yl5-00058r-LC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:10:00 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56035 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L7Yl5-00058o-I5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:09:59 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:14714)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1L7Yl5-0004E0-9B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:09:59 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1L7Yl4-0004qG-6G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:09:58 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] MMIO address changes
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:09:41 +0000
References: <200812011859.35859.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<200812021647.mB2Gldoe003402@smtp11.dti.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <200812021647.mB2Gldoe003402@smtp11.dti.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200812021709.41736.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: takasi-y@ops.dti.ne.jp
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> --- a/exec.c
> +++ b/exec.c
> @@ -2295,6 +2295,7 @@ void
> cpu_register_physical_memory_offset(target_phys_addr_ t start_addr,
>                  p->region_offset = 0;
>              } else {
>                  p->phys_offset = phys_offset;
> +                p->region_offset = region_offset;
>                  if ((phys_offset & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) <= IO_MEM_ROM ||
>                      (phys_offset & IO_MEM_ROMD))
>                      phys_offset += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE;

I guess this makes sense, however..

> You can see the difference when you register a region overriding
>  other(perhaps bigger) region.
>
> hw/sh7750.c hits this by registering
>  0xfc000000 .. 0xffffffff for CPU control registers,
> then
>  0xffe00000 .. 0xffe00028
>  0xffe80000 .. 0xffe80028
>  0xffd00000 .. 0xffd01000
>  0xffd80000 .. 0xffd81000
>  ...

You should not rely on overlapping regions doing anything sensible.

Paul