From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47799)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1SeNlJ-0003fK-DA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:51:51 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1SeNl9-0006pl-Qc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:51:44 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7886)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1SeNl9-0006pR-Ia
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 05:51:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD7111C.90004@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:24 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEgOgz5RadrsLQ9fniu40t4TwK-ubMcJOjhcVP9HVyHLBXH=+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FD208F6.3020307@codemonkey.ws>
	<CAEgOgz7bcfoA5DYM8T0Jz4OVOJkj3j85wjph825FXwL-QGY79w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FD5EF75.7060707@us.ibm.com>
	<CAFEAcA9aLUgMD-QtSr3uWtJPWA7Oj0BYTf67TdhGxN0_fnEicQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FD60834.2020208@codemonkey.ws> <4FD62B5C.4040106@redhat.com>
	<4FD63AC6.3070608@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4FD63AC6.3070608@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QOMification of AXI stream
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@petalogix.com>, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6Q=?= =?UTF-8?B?cmJlcg==?= <afaerber@suse.de>, John Williams <john.williams@petalogix.com>

On 06/11/2012 09:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>> cpu_physical_memory_rw() would be implemented as
>> memory_region_rw(system_memory, ...) while pci_dma_rw() would be
>> implemented as memory_region_rw(pcibm, ...).  This would allow different
>> address transformations for the two accesses.
> 
> BTW, the main problem with the memory API right now is that there isn't
> a 'MemoryRegion *mr' as the first argument to the dispatch functions. 

Why is it a problem?

> This could be fixed by introducing yet another set of function pointers
> and keeping the existing callers unchanged though.

I prefer a full s///, I hate the huge number of thunks we go through to
deliver some transaction.

Note we had a *mr parameter originally, it was removed in favour of *opaque.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function