From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46307) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Up0LD-00033Y-OJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:09:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Up0LC-0007cC-9u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:09:15 -0400 Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr ([2a01:e0c:1:1599::10]:46769) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Up0LB-0007bL-N6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:09:14 -0400 Message-ID: <51C0A240.3040002@reactos.org> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:09:04 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?SGVydsOpIFBvdXNzaW5lYXU=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1370713446-9460-1-git-send-email-hpoussin@reactos.org> <51BE01D3.1050709@reactos.org> <51BEBB83.7050207@redhat.com> <51BEBE28.4010004@siemens.com> <51BF73FD.6070103@reactos.org> <51C070D9.2050007@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <51C070D9.2050007@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/8] memory: remove old_portio usage List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Jan Kiszka a =C3=A9crit : > On 2013-06-17 22:39, Herv=C3=A9 Poussineau wrote: >> Jan Kiszka a =C3=A9crit : >>> On 2013-06-17 09:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> Il 16/06/2013 20:20, Herv=C3=A9 Poussineau ha scritto: >>>>> Herv=C3=A9 Poussineau a =C3=A9crit : >>>>>> These proposed patches aim at removing the .old_portio member of >>>>>> MemoryRegionOps structure, and replacing their usage by .read/.wri= te >>>>>> handlers. >>>>> Ping. >>>> Jan has patches that do something similar, so I was hoping he'd look= at it. >>>> >>>> Jan, are you back from vacation? :) >>> Yes, and that is the problem. ;) >>> >>> >From a quick glance, I'm a bit skeptical, Herv=C3=A9, that your patc= hes are >>> addressing all corner cases like mine. Did you see >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/210188? >>> >>> Jan >>> >> My patches are less intrusive than yours, because they are probably le= ss=20 >> complex. They don't change subpage handling, they don't remove the=20 >> register_ioport_*, and they don't move ioport handling to memory core. >> >> However, my patches do not add a new base address field in MemoryRegio= n,=20 >> and also simplify cpu_in/out to be simply a call to=20 >> address_space_read/write (like yours). >> >> I don't really care whatever way is chosen. I'm only interested to be=20 >> able to put I/O address space into memory space, so I can improve PReP= =20 >> emulation. >=20 > Refactorings like the subpage changes are required to break up the BQL > also for PIO dispatching. So we need the complete rework. But, of > course, I'm open for improvement suggestions. >=20 > I'm planning to rebase my series on top of Paolo's changes soon and wil= l > then post. Would you mind rebasing what you need additionally on top of > that? Not a problem. Moreover, with your patches, if devices registering ports with portio_*=20 functions can be added in the system memory address space, it will be=20 enough for me, and I'll happily drop my patches. Herv=C3=A9