From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47121) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgseY-0003jh-O1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2013 04:19:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgseQ-0001xy-95 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2013 04:19:38 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com ([74.125.83.53]:55013) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgseQ-0001xn-1t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 May 2013 04:19:30 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c1so3805643eek.12 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <51A31709.40601@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:19:21 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1369133851-1894-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1369133851-1894-18-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <51A05CDF.1090106@web.de> <51A06C9B.5060302@redhat.com> <51A09018.7000901@web.de> <51A09E6F.7030109@redhat.com> <51A0A0D5.5000706@web.de> <51A1CE2F.5050508@redhat.com> <51A1CF92.7030708@web.de> <51A30933.9080307@redhat.com> <51A309E9.2010903@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <51A309E9.2010903@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 17/30] memory: add address_space_translate List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, David Gibson Il 27/05/2013 09:23, Jan Kiszka ha scritto: > On 2013-05-27 09:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 26/05/2013 11:02, Jan Kiszka ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> Nice patches. Only one thing, how is .impl.unaligned different >>>>> from the existing .valid.unaligned? >>> See memory.h: valid controls is an unaligned access traps or gets >>> processed, impl manages if it is passed as-is to the device or >>> broken up and aligned first. >> >> I took the following patches: >> >> exec: Allow unaligned address_space_rw >> exec: Resolve subpages in one step except for IOTLB fills >> exec: Implement subpage_read/write via address_space_rw >> >> to limit the conflicts and because I realized that TCG should never >> encounter an IOMMU. > > Err, why? Will we emulate IOMMUs for TCG differently? Because IOMMUs should never be added to address_space_memory. TCG should only encounter an IOMMU during device emulation (DMA), not because of reads/writes from the CPU. So the IOTLBs should never point to an IOMMU region. Paolo >> Thus I removed the is_write argument from >> address_space_translate_internal and moved the IOMMU handling to >> address_space_translate. I'll push to my iommu branch after some more >> testing. If you reorganize the old_portio handling along the lines I >> suggested in my previous email you should have no conflicts when rebasing. > > old_portio should rather be eliminated on the long run. But that's a > future story. > > Jan >