On 2013-08-08 17:33, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 3 August 2013 09:31, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: >> --- a/ioport.c >> +++ b/ioport.c >> @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ typedef struct MemoryRegionPortioList { >> MemoryRegionPortio ports[]; >> } MemoryRegionPortioList; >> >> +static uint64_t unassigned_io_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, unsigned size) >> +{ >> + return -1UL; > > This should probably be "-1ULL", otherwise we'll return > different values on 32 bit and 64 bit hosts. (Actually > managing a 64 bit read of the i/o space is pretty > unlikely, though possibly alpha memory-mapped via the > PCI space might let you do it.)
No problem with changing this - but wouldn't 64-bit i/o accesses be a bug? It's not allowed according to PCI, no device can handle it (officially), so no arch should forward such requests from mmio, rather break them up first. > > PS: something about the way these patches were submitted > has confused Anthony's patches tool -- it reports them > as two separate patches rather than a single series. > (No cover letter, maybe?) Something on my side broke the reference from the second to the first email. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux