From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Peter Crosthwaite" <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>,
"QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Greg Bellows" <greg.bellows@linaro.org>,
"Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>,
"Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>,
"Richard Henderson" <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: memory API changes
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:00:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5511C251.8030907@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA86KdfyzP3Jgj85=njFp8meAkyOf5qPL6miMy0MFnkxgQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 24/03/2015 19:06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 March 2015 at 17:51, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 24/03/2015 17:35, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:23, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 15:08, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> , for those callers
>>>> of ld/st*_phys that use cs->as as the first argument.
>>>
>>> ...but I don't understand this caveat. I want to add arguments
>>> and rename the functions for *all* callers of ld/st*_phys.
>>> I don't want to specialcase the ones which happen to be
>>> operating on cs->as.
>>
>> The ones that operate on cs->as could become (for some CPUs at least)
>> special-cased accessors like the bus ones; for example building the
>> MemTxAttrs according to internal CPU state.
>
> Sure, individual targets could do something like this if they
> wanted (compare the arm_ldl_code functions), once these renames
> have gone in.
>
>> ld/st*_phys actually started as CPU-specific accessors, and most uses
>> are still of that kind, so it makes sense to me that we special-case
>> them. Maybe it limits churn, maybe it doesn't. But if it doesn't, it's
>> not like anything is lost.
>
> I think this is where we disagree. I see ld/st*_phys as being
> really generic -- they take an AddressSpace, after all, and
> part of the same family with address_space_read &c. If you
> don't leave them as generic, then you end up having to use
> the really awkward _read/_write for simple accesses and
> then manage the byteswapping yourself. That's why I want
> to rename them into address_space_* : to indicate that they
> are all part of the same family, and you can use
> address_space_read if you want to read an arbitrary byte
> buffer, or address_space_ldl_be if you want to read a
> big endian 32 bit word, and so on.
I agree with that. I just want to keep ld/st*_phys _in addition_ as the
short forms of address_space_ld/st*, and keep ld/st*_phys instead of
address_space_ld/st* for those uses that have cs->as as the first argument.
The rationale is to evolve ld/st*_phys into CPU-specific accessors
paralleling the bus-specific accessors.
Paolo
> (The only reason they started out CPU specific is because
> we didn't have any concept at all of having more than
> one address space, so there wasn't any need to say which
> one you meant when you were doing a load.)
>
> To me it makes much more sense that if a DMA controller
> like pl080 wants to do an LE word read from the AS which
> its bus master is connected to, that it can just do
> word = ldl_le_phys(my_as, addr, ...);
>
> I'd expect pretty much any bus master to want to do this
> kind of thing, in fact. It just happens that most of the
> bus masters we have in QEMU right now are CPUs...
>
> -- PMM
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-24 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-23 12:24 [Qemu-devel] RFC: memory API changes Peter Maydell
2015-03-23 12:30 ` Andreas Färber
2015-03-23 12:33 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-23 14:39 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-23 15:11 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-23 15:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-23 15:26 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-23 15:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-23 15:39 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-23 15:47 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-23 16:00 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-23 16:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-23 16:43 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-23 16:32 ` Andreas Färber
2015-03-25 10:56 ` Igor Mammedov
2015-03-23 17:51 ` Andreas Färber
2015-03-23 17:59 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-24 13:47 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-24 14:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-24 14:53 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-24 15:08 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-24 15:12 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-24 16:23 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-24 16:35 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-24 17:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-24 18:06 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-24 20:00 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2015-03-24 23:41 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-25 11:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-03-25 11:43 ` Peter Maydell
2015-03-25 11:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5511C251.8030907@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=afaerber@suse.de \
--cc=edgar.iglesias@gmail.com \
--cc=greg.bellows@linaro.org \
--cc=peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).