From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MLKNt-0007qg-W5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:14 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MLKNp-0007pJ-J0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:13 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42448 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLKNp-0007pF-8i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:09 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53203)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1MLKNo-0007jC-Sp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:11:09 -0400
Message-ID: <4A48F5B5.4000002@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:11:17 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Implement PC port80 debug register.
References: <1246262725-23825-1-git-send-email-jljusten@gmail.com>	<4A48C5F5.6030402@codemonkey.ws>
	<4A48CE67.9070705@redhat.com>	<2a50f7880906290826t4128b11dyc68a36fd01e8208c@mail.gmail.com>	<4A48DE4A.7090706@codemonkey.ws>
	<2a50f7880906290907m60bda19cy53a58c97fd014c73@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2a50f7880906290907m60bda19cy53a58c97fd014c73@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Jordan Justen <jljusten@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 06/29/2009 07:07 PM, Jordan Justen wrote:
> Anthony,
>
> That seems like a reasonable request.
>
> So, a 'info port80' command would be preferable to having i/o port 
> 0x80 be read/write?
>

Maybe, info debug-port.

> I still think the read/write port route would
> * better emulate systems,
> * be more flexible (allowing software the option to read it),
> * and, be easier to implement :)
>
> But, I think the most important part is to make the data accessible 
> somehow.  So, the monitor access method would work fine as well.

I don't object to read/write access.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.