On 06/10/2017 14:46, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>> addr = ((iotlb.translated_addr & ~iotlb.addr_mask) >>> | (addr & iotlb.addr_mask)); >>> - *plen = MIN(*plen, (addr | iotlb.addr_mask) - addr + 1); >>> + page_mask = iotlb.addr_mask; >> >> Should this be "page_mask &= iotlb.addr_mask"? >> >> If you have multiple IOMMUs on top of each other (yeah, I know...) I >> think the smallest size should win. This is also consistent with the >> MIN in the line below. > > I agree, but changin to "page_mask &= iotlb.addr_mask" will not be > enough, we also have to change the init value. Else we will always end > up with 0xfff. > > Maybe we could do as plen was handled before, i.e. setting page_mask > init value to (hwaddr)(-1), and after the loop set it to > ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK if it hasn't been changed. > > Does that sound reasonable?
True that, in fact it makes sense for the "IOTLB entry" to represent all of memory if there's no IOMMU at all. Thanks, Paolo
