Re: [PATCH 10/10] rust: bindings for MemoryRegionOps

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 6/2/25 11:19, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 2/6/25 11:02, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > Could we always make .valid_sizes() explicit?
> > >
> > > Yes (for example build() could even fail to compile if you don't have
> > > impl_sizes/valid_sizes set), but why do you want that? I'm not even
> > > sure that all cases of .valid.max_access_size=4 are correct...
> >
> > Exactly for that :) Not have implicit default values, so correct
> > values are reviewed when models are added.
>
> But I wouldn't bet that those that we have in C are reviewed and 
> correct...  They are incorrect if the hardware accepts 8-byte writes, 
> either discarding the top 4 bytes (then impl must both be 8) or writing 
> to both registers (then impl must be 4).

Are you saying in general or for the pl011 model?

What I'm asking is to have all rust models explicit the min/max sizes,
regardless of whether the C implementations are correct or not. For
rust models, we won't rely on default and will have to check the
valid range in the specs.