qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/17] eepro100: symbolic names for pci register


From: Anthony Liguori
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 06/17] eepro100: symbolic names for pci registers
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:32:27 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0

On 01/07/2010 05:14 AM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin schrieb:
No functional changes. I verified that the generated binary
does not change in meaningful ways. Survived light usage
with linux guest.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<address@hidden>
---
hw/eepro100.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/eepro100.c b/hw/eepro100.c
index 2a9e3b5..82e3766 100644
--- a/hw/eepro100.c
+++ b/hw/eepro100.c
@@ -412,19 +412,24 @@ static void pci_reset(EEPRO100State * s)
pci_config_set_vendor_id(pci_conf, PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL);
/* PCI Device ID depends on device and is set below. */
/* PCI Command */
+ /* TODO: this is the default, do not override. */
PCI_CONFIG_16(PCI_COMMAND, 0x0000);
/* PCI Status */
- PCI_CONFIG_16(PCI_STATUS, 0x2800);
+ /* TODO: this seems to make no sense. */
+ /* TODO: Value at RST# should be 0. */
+ PCI_CONFIG_16(PCI_STATUS,
+ PCI_STATUS_REC_MASTER_ABORT | PCI_STATUS_SIG_TARGET_ABORT);
/* PCI Revision ID */
Hi,

this PCI status value is wrong. The correct value for PCI_STATUS is 0x0280
and was fixed in the maintainer version in 2007:
http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/ar7.git/commitdiff/9da3830d81948cc1f666fcf562699f165b029a79

It was also fixed in a patch sent to qemu-devel (which was never applied):
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/33962/

I'll send a new patch which fixes the wrong status value.

Antony, how can we speed up the synchronisation process for
eepro100.c? Today, patches get lost without feedback.
This is no wonder because you have to work on hundreds of patches.
It was suggested that I should send patch series.
My last patch serie with 3 patches is ready for integration
since 2009-12-20.

The big problem with eepro100 is that you're doing a bunch of work in an external tree, and then trickling things slowly onto the list. Take some time and send out one big series getting your internal tree in sync. Of course, the end target must conform to CodingStyle which is a problem right now in your tree.

Paul, if I had commit rights, I could integrate the missing
parts myself and maintain eepro100.c in the future. Of course
I'd send the single changes to the list before comitting them.
Don't you think that would be the best solution for all of us?

Pull requests work just as well as commit rights. However, pull requests only work when the patches are ready to go and don't need iteration. A bare minimum for that is going to be conforming to CodingStyle which has been a problem with eepro100.

But look, you send out patches during a holiday, and we're still catching up. If it had been during a normal time period, that would be one thing, but please exercise a bit of patience.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori




reply via email to

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