From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36806)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QO30g-0000bH-DI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 May 2011 03:23:35 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QO30f-0000xm-FB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 May 2011 03:23:34 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39813)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1QO30f-0000xi-64
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 May 2011 03:23:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4DD8B9ED.1050700@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 10:23:25 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4DD3C5B9.1080908@redhat.com> <4DD3D236.90708@siemens.com>
	<4DD3D95E.2060105@redhat.com> <4DD3E1B3.3020405@siemens.com>
	<BANLkTimYH3-FkVQfdOXO+at2G0NhX-UaVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DD3E610.1080201@siemens.com> <4DD4199E.2000702@codemonkey.ws>
	<4DD41DBB.2020108@web.de> <20110519082644.GC28399@redhat.com>
	<4DD4D53F.1090108@web.de>
	<BANLkTimhGWeaHwfdRg-Fu=HfEYMqdVd4_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimhGWeaHwfdRg-Fu=HfEYMqdVd4_w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Memory API
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>

On 05/20/2011 08:30 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Another case would be the cache-as-ram mode for some x86 CPUs, which
> Coreboot people would like to see IIRC.

That's probably best handled as a cache emulation layer, as this is not 
associated with any specific address range.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.