From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M0L0A-0002cl-UA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2009 15:35:58 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M0L06-0002cV-EM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2009 15:35:58 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48796 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M0L06-0002cS-8z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2009 15:35:54 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:40040)
	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 1M0L05-0000u8-T1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2009 15:35:54 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1M0L04-0007XC-2n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 02 May 2009 15:35:52 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] 64 bit I/O support v7
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 20:35:44 +0100
References: <49EDB109.5010009@earthlink.net>
	<200905020057.23902.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<f43fc5580905020823l240871b0wa4d6be2d2be121c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580905020823l240871b0wa4d6be2d2be121c@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200905022035.45562.paul@codesourcery.com>
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Robert Reif <reif@earthlink.net>

On Saturday 02 May 2009, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 5/2/09, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > > Should a new intermediate bus layer also do byte swapping?
> >
> > Yes, though a bus layer isn't actually a necessary prerequisite.
> >
> >  As I mentioned in the recent "Smarter compilation for target devices"
> >  thread[1], having individual devices do byteswapping is bogus. A while
> > ago I reworked the TLB handling, so there should now be spare bits that
> > can be used for things like byteswapping.
>
> This version does the byte swapping and width translation in exec.c.
> Sparc32 OpenBIOS/Linux does not use the wrong sized accesses, so that
> part may be untested.

This appears to be adding yet annother layer of indirection, which isn't 
really what I had inmind.

Paul