On 24/03/2015 14:47, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 23 March 2015 at 12:24, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> (This is part of the work I'm doing for transaction attributes.) > > OK, here's try 2, based on feedback on the first proposal: > > * address_space_rw &c remain with their current names, but > take an extra MemTxAttrs argument and return MemTxResult > rather than bool. (The latter conveniently doesn't require changes to > callsites because conversion to bool gives the same true-on-error > semantics as before.) > [maybe readbuf/writebuf would be clearer than read/write, > but it didn't seem sufficiently obvious a win to make the change] > * the ld/st_*phys functions are renamed as: > ldl_be_phys -> address_space_ldl_be &c > and all take MemTxAttrs, *MemTxResult > * rather than MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, use TXATTRS_NONE, so the > extra arguments (TXATTRS_NONE, NULL) aren't too unwieldy > * prototypes in memory.h > * no default-to-no-attrs/etc versions of ld/st*_ phys > (if in specific devices/buses it's the best thing we should > have bus-specific dma accessors, as we do for pci)
I would keep them since they're really heavily used with cs->as as the first argument. But definitely move them to a different header than cpu-common.h, and perhaps make them takes a CPUState instead of an AddressSpace (which might help solving "where do we call the unassigned-access hooks" in the future). In any case, the removal or segregation of ld/st*_phys should be a separate series for ease of review. Apart from this, I'm on board. Paolo > * mechanically convert all uses of cpu_physical_memory_* to > address_space_*(&address_space_memory, ...) > > [This leaves the "where do we call the unassigned-access > hooks" problem for a different patchset.] > > Is there anything in there people strongly dislike, or > should I start writing coccinelle patches for this? > > -- PMM >
