From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hslqx-0001mX-Cp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 16:30:07 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hslqv-0001mD-Tz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 16:30:06 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hslqv-0001m9-MZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 16:30:05 -0400
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1Hslqv-0006Oy-B5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 16:30:05 -0400
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id a2so1565174ugf
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 28 May 2007 13:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580705281330p7505d44bl6a0599329a4aea1b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:30:03 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu/linux-user syscall.c
In-Reply-To: <200705281528.01875.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <E1Hsfqv-0003Qv-HG@cvs> <200705281528.01875.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 5/28/07, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> target_phys_addr_t isn't really meaningful for userspace emulation.
> We don't have physical addresses, only target (target_ulong) and
> host (void *) virtual addresses.

Vice versa, there are a some references in hw/*.c to target_ulong,
shouldn't they in general be target_phys_addr_t? PPC CPU register
definitions may be an exception.