qemu-arm
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH v2 06/11] aspeed/smc: fix default read value


From: Cédric Le Goater
Subject: Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH v2 06/11] aspeed/smc: fix default read value
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:51:22 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0

On 9/25/18 2:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 September 2018 at 17:19, Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 0xFFFFFFFF should be returned for non implemented registers.
>>
>> Also,
> 
> Use of "Also" in a commit message often indicates that it
> would be better to split the commit. The two changes here
> don't seem to me to have much to do with each other.

They do in the symptom which is to expose the correct register
values. But I won't argue and next version will introduce two 
patches :)

Thanks,

C.

>> the model should expose one control register per possible CS
>> even if there is no flash device attached. When testing the validity
>> of the register number in the read operation, replace 's->num_cs' by
>> 'ctrl->max_slaves' which represents the maximum number of flash
>> devices a controller can handle.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
>> index 1270842dcf0c..6045ca11b969 100644
>> --- a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
>> +++ b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
>> @@ -665,12 +665,12 @@ static uint64_t aspeed_smc_read(void *opaque, hwaddr 
>> addr, unsigned int size)
>>          addr == s->r_ce_ctrl ||
>>          addr == R_INTR_CTRL ||
>>          (addr >= R_SEG_ADDR0 && addr < R_SEG_ADDR0 + s->ctrl->max_slaves) ||
>> -        (addr >= s->r_ctrl0 && addr < s->r_ctrl0 + s->num_cs)) {
>> +        (addr >= s->r_ctrl0 && addr < s->r_ctrl0 + s->ctrl->max_slaves)) {
> 
> The commit message mentions changing the upper bound on the
> address check here and also the unimplemented-register return
> value, but this change also seems to be changing the lower bound
> in the check ?
> 
>>          return s->regs[addr];
>>      } else {
>>          qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "%s: not implemented: 0x%" HWADDR_PRIx 
>> "\n",
>>                        __func__, addr);
>> -        return 0;
>> +        return -1;
>>      }
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM
> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]