Hi, Anthony Thank you for yor comments.
>From the patch, guest executes ld.s on physical mode. >Is this a cacheable address(region 0) or un-cacheable address(region 4)? No, this guest work on virtual mode. My patch is for virtual mode. This address is 0xa0000000fee00018. When we found the isssue, arguments of mmio_access() are (f000000007980000, fee00018, f000000007987d80, 4, 4, 1), so I think it is un-cachable. > >If it is a un-cacheable address, >According to spec, the behavior of ld.s on un-cacheable page is undefined. >We can set psr.ed directly. > Is cheking ma=4 better? >If it is a cacheable address and it is IO address. >I don't know the real behavior on native machine. >So we need to get the real behavior first, then decide how to emulate it. >I'm asking some exports, hope I can get the answer. > Thanks. This issue is difficult to reproduce, because we don't know step to reproduce. Best Regards, Akio Takebe _______________________________________________ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list Xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
