From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N5es6-0006da-Ep for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:21:54 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N5es1-0006ar-V7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:21:54 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42196 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N5es1-0006ag-Ri for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:21:49 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2351) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N5es1-0008HW-Bv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:21:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:19:19 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH V6 17/32] pci: 64bit bar support. Message-ID: <20091104121919.GA8920@redhat.com> References: <1256905286-25435-1-git-send-email-yamahata@valinux.co.jp> <1256905286-25435-18-git-send-email-yamahata@valinux.co.jp> <20091101160730.GA21894@redhat.com> <20091103035210.GA28390%yamahata@valinux.co.jp> <20091103114756.GC3375@redhat.com> <4AF0206F.7080004@redhat.com> <20091103123906.GB4961@redhat.com> <20091103140100.GB28390%yamahata@valinux.co.jp> <20091103140916.GB5605@redhat.com> <20091104062002.GH28390%yamahata@valinux.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091104062002.GH28390%yamahata@valinux.co.jp> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Isaku Yamahata Cc: Avi Kivity , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:20:02PM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 04:09:16PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > Long term, we should fix all devices and *then* they can claim 64 bit > > > > support always. As a nice side effect, we'll be able to avoid > > > > rebuilding devices. > > > > > > Are you claiming that (PCI) devices emulation shouldn't depend on > > > target_phys_addr_t? That sounds a good idea. > > > > Yes. Maybe we can stop devices from mapping memory, have pci > > core do it for them. > > IIRC Avi proposed such a patch, link? > but it didn't get merged. I wonder why - currently mapping is done by devices but unmapping is done by pci core. That's been always bothering me. > -- > yamahata