qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/8] fw_cfg: max access size and region size


From: Laszlo Ersek
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/8] fw_cfg: max access size and region size are the same for MMIO data reg
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:17:12 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0

On 12/16/14 21:06, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 12/16/14 20:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/12/2014 20:00, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> The root of this question is what each of
>>>
>>> enum device_endian {
>>>     DEVICE_NATIVE_ENDIAN,
>>>     DEVICE_BIG_ENDIAN,
>>>     DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN,
>>> };
>>
>> Actually, I think the root of the answer :) is that fw_cfg_read (and
>> thus fw_cfg_data_mem_read) is not idempotent.  The split/compose stuff
>> accesses the bytes at offsets 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and composes them
>> according to the endianness.
>>
>> In the case of fw_cfg it just retrieves 8 bytes, but in the case of host
>> big endian it reads them in the "wrong" order for some reason (sorry, I
>> haven't looked at this thoroughly).
> 
> I can't imagine how that would happen; fw_cfg_data_mem_read() ignores
> both "addr" and "size", and fw_cfg_read() simply advances the
> "cur_offset" member.

Ah okay, I understand your point now; you're probably saying that
access_with_adjusted_size() traverses the offsets in the wrong order.
... I don't see how; the only difference in the access() param list is
the shift count. (I don't know how it should work by design.)

In any case fw_cfg should be able to handle the larger accesses itself.

Thanks
Laszlo



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]