On 28 June 2011 13:09, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > Okay, let's make t_p_a_t max(bus size in system).
If you want a type for that, can't you give it a sensible (ie different) name? target_phys_addr_t is pretty clearly "the type of a physical address for this target" and having it actually be something else is just going to be confusing. > Do we have 32-bit targets > that don't support pci (I guess, pc-isa with cpu < ppro?). Do we want to > support a 32-bit variant of pci? It certainly existed at some point. As a thought experiment, you could take an existing 32 bit target and define a new board model that happens to have eg a new pci controller on it. It doesn't seem right that that should cause the system's idea of this type width to change, it's just a new device model and board. So if you have this type I think it ought to be max(bus size of widest bus qemu supports). -- PMM
