On 6/1/20 1:09 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 5/31/20 9:09 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 18:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>
>>> It is pointless to have 32-bit CPUs see a 64-bit address
>>> space, when they can only address the 32 lower bits.
>>>
>>> Only create C
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 09:09, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 5/31/20 9:09 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > [*] Strictly speaking, it would depend on the
> > maximum physical address size used by any transaction
> > master in the system -- in theory you could have a
> > 32-bit-only CPU and a DMA con
On 5/31/20 9:09 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 18:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>
>> It is pointless to have 32-bit CPUs see a 64-bit address
>> space, when they can only address the 32 lower bits.
>>
>> Only create CPU address space with a size it can address.
>> This make
On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 18:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>
> It is pointless to have 32-bit CPUs see a 64-bit address
> space, when they can only address the 32 lower bits.
>
> Only create CPU address space with a size it can address.
> This makes HMP 'info mtree' command easier to understand
>
It is pointless to have 32-bit CPUs see a 64-bit address
space, when they can only address the 32 lower bits.
Only create CPU address space with a size it can address.
This makes HMP 'info mtree' command easier to understand
(on 32-bit CPUs).
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
---
This is par
