On 2011-09-12 11:11, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 12:01 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-09-12 08:43, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 09/11/2011 09:31 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>> Field 'offset' is always zero, maybe that is not interesting. Will it
>>>> become one day?
>>>
>>> It's not always zero, but only used by certain devices.
>>
>> I do not see any users, neither upstream nor in Avi's tree.
>
> There aren't.
>
>> To my (semi-)understanding, offset should correlate to region_offset of
>> cpu_register_physical_memory_offset: legacy device models require this
>> to be 0 as they expect an absolute memory address passed to their
>> handler, in contrast to a normal one that is relative to the regions
>> base. But I do not see how the memory region offset actually helps here.
>>
>
> mr->offset is added to the address in memory_region_{read,write}_thunk_n().
Ah, ok.
So the default address passed to the handler is now already relative? I
think we should keep it like this for all converted devices, ie. take
the chance, fix the remaining models, and drop the offset.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
