On 2011-06-28 14:09, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/28/2011 03:07 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>> The point is that different buses have different widths. >>> target_phys_addr_t matches just one bus in the system. It needs to be >>> the maximum size of all buses present to be useful. >> >> Then we need a type for that. Or we need to demand that >> target_phys_addr_t is defined large enough to support all buses that the >> particular arch wants to address. Hardcoding 64 bit or anything is not >> appropriate for a generic subsystem. > > Okay, let's make t_p_a_t max(bus size in system). Do we have 32-bit > targets that don't support pci (I guess, pc-isa with cpu < ppro?).
At least lm32 and microblaze appear to fall into that category. > Do we want to support a 32-bit variant of pci? It certainly existed at > some point. As long as making everything 64 bit in the implementation of the device models is not guest visible, I don't think that should be a problem. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
