From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50497) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJ8Wk-0007aA-Ft for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:58:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VJ8Wc-000135-2p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:57:42 -0400 Message-ID: <522E362B.4030208@reactos.org> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:57:15 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?SGVydsOpIFBvdXNzaW5lYXU=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1378247351-8446-1-git-send-email-hpoussin@reactos.org> <1378247351-8446-6-git-send-email-hpoussin@reactos.org> <5226CCD4.2030204@redhat.com> <5226EB43.203@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 05/10] raven: set a correct PCI I/O memory region List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , QEMU Developers Peter Maydell a =C3=A9crit : > On 4 September 2013 09:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 04/09/2013 09:22, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >>> should not be using address_space_io; but the >>> easiest way to get there is to convert the PCI bridges one at >>> a time as we have maintenance effort to do so. >> I'm not against the patch, but there are less than ten host bridges an= d >> most of them should be tested by "make check", so I would prefer to ha= ve >> a plan for making things consistent. >=20 > My plan for that goes: > 1. where people are overhauling a host bridge (ie in a patchset like > this one) allow them to make the changes that move in the right > direction > 2. look at how many other bridges remain after that > 3. fix the other bridges if anybody has time and effort >=20 > (Does 'make check' really test all the host bridges? This doesn't > seem very likely to me.) Paolo, Peter, so, did we raise some consensus? Should I reuse=20 get_system_io(), or having a separate MemoryRegion is acceptable? I think that creating a independant MemoryRegion is better, as I see no=20 reason why QEMU should provide a global I/O region, which has some sense=20 mostly on x86 architectures only. However, I can rework patches to use get_system_io() if that's what you=20 prefer... Herv=C3=A9