On 2013-05-27 09:20, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 26/05/2013 11:02, Jan Kiszka ha scritto: >>>> >>>> Nice patches. Only one thing, how is .impl.unaligned different >>>> from the existing .valid.unaligned? >> See memory.h: valid controls is an unaligned access traps or gets >> processed, impl manages if it is passed as-is to the device or >> broken up and aligned first. > > I took the following patches: > > exec: Allow unaligned address_space_rw > exec: Resolve subpages in one step except for IOTLB fills > exec: Implement subpage_read/write via address_space_rw > > to limit the conflicts and because I realized that TCG should never > encounter an IOMMU.
Err, why? Will we emulate IOMMUs for TCG differently? > Thus I removed the is_write argument from > address_space_translate_internal and moved the IOMMU handling to > address_space_translate. I'll push to my iommu branch after some more > testing. If you reorganize the old_portio handling along the lines I > suggested in my previous email you should have no conflicts when rebasing. old_portio should rather be eliminated on the long run. But that's a future story. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
