Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Jerry,
In message 492DD314.7070700@gmail.com you wrote:
How would xlat know which direction it is to translate?
From the argument that is passed to it:
xlat 1234 or xlat 0x1234
are taken as VA's (see discussion about default address interpretation), so "xlat" will print the PA.
xlat 1234.p or xlat 0x1234.p
has a PA as argument, so it prints the VA.
Multiple arguments (even mixed) might be allowed, too, for example:
xlat 1234 1234.p 5678 5678.p
Ooo, I think the answer to that xlat would make my head hurt.
Thoughts: vtop(virtual) returns physical ptov(physical) returns virtual or (see below thought on 0v / 0p) xlat(0p1234) returns virtual xlat(0v1234) returns physical xlat(0x1234) returns physical (per convention from snipped discussion)
Seems too complex for a simple mind like mine ;-)
Ah, we are on the same page here with xlat except I had spurious parenthesis (brain was working in C mode, not bash mode) and I used 0v/0p instead of .v .p.
[snip]
Thought: 0v6789ABCD is a virtual address (the value is interpreted as hex) 0p6789ABCD is a physical address
Of course "v" and "p" should be accepted in either case.
Kinda ugly, but fits into the 0x style conventions.
I tend to allow for suffixes, i. e. "6789ABCD" or "6789ABCD.v" are VAs, while "6789ABCD.p" is a PA.
To me, that is easier to read.
Agreed. The .[0-9a-z] suffix is a convention already used by u-boot and is much more readable than my 0v and 0p proposal.
[snip]
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Thanks, gvb