On 24/03/2015 17:35, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 24 March 2015 at 16:23, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 24 March 2015 at 15:08, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 24/03/2015 15:53, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>>>> In any case, the removal or segregation of ld/st*_phys should be a >>>>>>> separate series for ease of review. >>>>> Who wants to remove ld/st*_phys? Not me... >>>> >>>> Well, you want to rename them _and_ add new arguments. Basically at the >>>> end they don't exist anymore as we know them now. :) >>> >>> I guess :-) So what exactly would you like to see as a >>> separate series? >> >> Adding the arguments / renaming the functions > > OK. (This will need the patch that actually at least defines > the MemTxAttr and MemTxResult types, obviously.) > >> , 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. 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. Paolo
