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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home