On 25/03/2015 00:41, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 24 March 2015 at 20:00, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> I agree with that. I just want to keep ld/st*_phys _in addition_ as the >> short forms of address_space_ld/st*, and keep ld/st*_phys instead of >> address_space_ld/st* for those uses that have cs->as as the first argument. > > ...but for ARM I want to be able to specify the memory > attribute argument (and possibly also get the behaviour > right on failure). So I definitely don't want the short > forms for my cs->as uses.
You're free to move ARM to the longer versions, and/or to push the short versions to all cpu.h files except ARM's. > And it seems to me at best > uncertain that anybody does, in the long run. I disagree: most CPUs are in odd fixes/unmaintained state (so attributes probably won't matter), and most don't even define an unassigned_access callback (so result won't matter either). >> The rationale is to evolve ld/st*_phys into CPU-specific accessors >> paralleling the bus-specific accessors. > > I don't think this is any harder starting from > address_space_ld/st* than if we leave ld/st*_phys > around. It does cause unnecessary churn though. Paolo
