On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 03:51:07PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 10 April 2015 at 03:07, Edgar E. Iglesias edgar.igles...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 11:21:26AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 09/04/2015 11:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
We discussed this last time round, I think.
On 9 April 2015 at 09:55, Edgar E. Iglesias edgar.igles...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you consider using a struct here?
e.g:
typedef struct MemTxAttrs {
unsigned int secure : 1;
unsigned int master_id : 10;
unsigned int etc : 1;
} MemTxAttrs;
I think you could still pass it by
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:09:47PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
Define an API so that devices can register MemoryRegionOps whose read
and write callback functions are passed an arbitrary pointer to some
transaction attributes and can return a success-or-failure status code.
This will allow us
On 09/04/2015 11:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
We discussed this last time round, I think. Whether structs get
passed in registers depends on the host CPU ABI/calling convention.
Because of C++, structs up to pointer size are in practice always passed
in registers. 64-bit structs may or may not.
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:04:39AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 9 April 2015 at 09:55, Edgar E. Iglesias edgar.igles...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you consider using a struct here?
e.g:
typedef struct MemTxAttrs {
unsigned int secure : 1;
unsigned int master_id : 10;
On 07/04/2015 22:09, Peter Maydell wrote:
Define an API so that devices can register MemoryRegionOps whose read
and write callback functions are passed an arbitrary pointer to some
transaction attributes and can return a success-or-failure status code.
This will allow us to model devices
Define an API so that devices can register MemoryRegionOps whose read
and write callback functions are passed an arbitrary pointer to some
transaction attributes and can return a success-or-failure status code.
This will allow us to model devices which:
* behave differently for ARM
