|
From: | Avi Kivity |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Type-safe ioport callbacks |
Date: | Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:35:25 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.4 |
On 10/26/2010 07:27 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Sorry, I don't follow your meaning.When I said "size is implied" I meant that the IOPort object has a separate function pointer for sizes 1, 2, and 4, so it ioport_register() doesn't need a size parameter. But I don't see how that relates to your comment.Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to combine "this is how to dispatch I/O" with "this is a region of I/O address space".
Oh, so Blue meant the size of the region in ports, not the size of the individual ports. I think that putting the range length (but not base address) in the IOPort structure may make sense.
I think an IORegion should contain an IOPort structure though. I think the name needs rethinking.Maybe: struct PortIOHandler; struct MemoryIOHandler;
Why two types? I think some devices use PIO on a PC and MMIO on other architectures. Sharing the type would allow sharing code.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |