From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LFymG-0004nW-Vf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:34:01 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LFymE-0004nK-Hw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:33:59 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42458 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LFymE-0004nH-9O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:33:58 -0500
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.251]:5595)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <balrogg@gmail.com>) id 1LFymD-0002GZ-Oo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:33:58 -0500
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so3204381rvb.22
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:33:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <fb249edb0812251433r2560652aga15f2c2fb0985d52@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 23:33:56 +0100
From: "andrzej zaborowski" <balrogg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: MMIO address changes
In-Reply-To: <ghqkh7$5os$1@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200812011859.35859.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<ghqkh7$5os$1@ger.gmane.org>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

2008/12/11 Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>:
> Paul Brook wrote:
>
>> I've just committed a patch that changes the MMIO callback interface for
>> devices.  Instead of being passed an absolute address these are now passed an
>> offset from the start[1] of the memory region that was registered.
> ...
>> [1] It's actually the offset from the start of the first page of that region.
>> In practice this difference doesn't matter, and makes the implementation a
>> lot simpler.
>
> This breaks something for me. I have:
>
>         smc91c111_init(&nd_table[0], (0xb4000000 + 0x01800000 + 0x300) & 0x1fffffff,
>                   get_irq(s, 7));
>
> and smc91c111_init presently does:
>
>        cpu_register_physical_memory(base, 16, iomemtype);
>
> and smc emulation promptly dies because an access with address of 0x30e is made,
> with 0x300 apparently being the offset from the page start, with 0xe being the desired
> offset. What is the cleanest way to address this? Reverting your change to
> sms91c111.c works, fwiw.

Masking the address with 15 should be acceptable for smc91c111.c I
think.  The other possibility is reverting the change to keep
subtracting the base address, but which would be masked with
TARGET_PAGE_MASK.

Cheers