On 22 July 2013 18:32, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 22.07.2013 19:27, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 22 July 2013 17:36, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> >>> --- >>> HACKING | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING >>> index e73ac79..d9dbb46 100644 >>> --- a/HACKING >>> +++ b/HACKING >>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ ram_addr_t. >>> >>> Use target_ulong (or abi_ulong) for CPU virtual addresses, however >>> devices should not need to use target_ulong. >>> +Use vaddr for CPU virtual addresses in target-independent code. >> >> Here's my suggestion for this paragraph (ie to replace >> both the "Use target_ulong..." and "Use vaddr" sentences >> above): >> >> ===begin=== >> For CPU virtual addresses there are several possible types. >> vaddr is the best type to use to hold a CPU virtual address >> in target-independent code, including most devices. It is > > Thanks. What reason can you think of for using vaddr in a device?
I put that in because the existing text says "devices should not need to use target_ulong" and they obviously shouldn't use abi_ulong, leaving only vaddr if they want to play with target virtual addresses. I agree that most devices shouldn't care about virtual addresses at all, though, so it's probably less confusing to just drop the ", including most devices" bit. PS, I dunno if this amount of text needs a signoff, but you have my Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> in case it matters. -- PMM
