[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 23/25] PPC: e500: dt: use target_phys_addr_t for
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 23/25] PPC: e500: dt: use target_phys_addr_t for ramsize
Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:10:12 +0200
On 01.06.2012, at 00:52, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 05:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 01.06.2012, at 00:24, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2012 05:18 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 01.06.2012, at 00:07, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>> On 05/30/2012 06:00 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> We're passing the ram size as uint32_t, capping it to 32 bits atm.
>>>>>> Change to target_phys_addr_t (uint64_t) to make sure we have all
>>>>>> the bits.
>>>>> Wouldn't ram_addr_t be more appropriate?
>>>> I never quite grasped the difference, but wasn't ram_addr_t something for
>>>> the host?
>>> I don't fully understand QEMU's RAM handling, but from what I recall RAM
>>> is treated differently from arbitrary guest physical addresses, with a
>>> QEMU-internal contiguous address space. Guest RAM needs to be mappable
>>> by QEMU as well as the target, so ram_addr_t is 32-bit on a 32-bit host,
>>> even if target_phys_addr_t is different.
>>> But again, it was a while ago that I looked at this, and I didn't fully
>>> understand it then, so I may be missing or misremembering something.
>> Right, so target_phys_addr_t is what we want, because that's what
>> describes the guest's physical memory layout the best, which is what
>> we're describing here, right? It should definitely be independent of
>> the host's virtual memory layout.
> It's not really the host virtual memory layout -- it's just constrained
> by the need to fit there. QEMU's notion of a "RAM address" is a
> different address space than either target physical or host virtual. We
> can't have more target RAM than will fit in ram_addr_t (though it can
> start at a target physical address that doesn't fit in ram_addr_t).
> If you want to use target_phys_addr_t here, fine -- it's not performance
> critical -- but the uint32_t was only really removing a limitation on
> 64-bit hosts, and semanticly target_phys_addr_t doesn't seem as correct
> as ram_addr_t.
> The same applies to initrd_size, which currently uses target_phys_addr_t.
> If we were discussing the address of RAM (as seen by the target), rather
> than the size of it, then target_phys_addr_t would be correct (and we
> already use it for that).
> From HACKING:
> "Use target_phys_addr_t for guest physical addresses except pcibus_t
> for PCI addresses. In addition, ram_addr_t is a QEMU internal address
> space that maps guest RAM physical addresses into an intermediate
> address space that can map to host virtual address spaces. Generally
> speaking, the size of guest memory can always fit into ram_addr_t but
> it would not be correct to store an actual guest physical address in a
So if I understand this correctly, the offset into the guest physical memory
layout would be target_phys_addr_t, while the ram size would be ram_addr_t?
Jeez - can't we just use u64 for everything and call it a day? :)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 25/25] Revert "dt: temporarily disable subtree creation failure check", (continued)