Michael S. Tsirkin schrieb: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote: > ... >> --- >> hw/eepro100.c | 4 +--- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/eepro100.c b/hw/eepro100.c >> index 336ca49..a21c984 100644 >> --- a/hw/eepro100.c >> +++ b/hw/eepro100.c >> @@ -420,10 +420,8 @@ static void pci_reset(EEPRO100State * s) >> /* TODO: this is the default, do not override. */ >> PCI_CONFIG_16(PCI_COMMAND, 0x0000); >> /* PCI Status */ >> - /* TODO: this seems to make no sense. */ >> /* TODO: Value at RST# should be 0. */ > > So this second todo can go too. I've removed it in my tree. > >> - PCI_CONFIG_16(PCI_STATUS, >> - PCI_STATUS_REC_MASTER_ABORT | PCI_STATUS_SIG_TARGET_ABORT); >> + PCI_CONFIG_16(PCI_STATUS, PCI_STATUS_DEVSEL_MEDIUM | >> PCI_STATUS_FAST_BACK); >> /* PCI Revision ID */ >> PCI_CONFIG_8(PCI_REVISION_ID, 0x08); > > BTW if you are not afraid of churn, there's no reason > for PCI_CONFIG_8 and friends anymore, because pci.h > has much nicer pci_set_byte etc.
Hello Michael, I already noticed pci_set_byte, pci_set_word, pci_set_long and the corresponding pci_get_xxx functions and thought about using them. I did not start it because I want to suggest a different API for use in PCI device emulations: instead of pci_set_word(pci_conf + PCI_STATUS, PCI_STATUS_CAP_LIST); or pci_set_word(&pci_conf[PCI_STATUS], PCI_STATUS_CAP_LIST); it would be better to call pci_set_word(pci_conf, PCI_STATUS, PCI_STATUS_CAP_LIST); The prototypes would look like this: /* Set PCI config value. */ void pci_set_word(PCIDevice *s, uint8_t offset, uint16_t val); /* Set PCI cmask value. */ void pci_set_cmask_word(PCIDevice *s, uint8_t offset, uint16_t val); /* Set PCI wmask value. */ void pci_set_wmask_word(PCIDevice *s, uint8_t offset, uint16_t val); What are the advantages? * strict type checking (the old API takes any uint8_t *) * many other pci_* functions also have a first parameter of type PCIDevice * calls look nicer (at least in my opinion) * strict range checking (offset is limited to 0...255, additional assertions possible - the old API is unsafe because it just takes a pointer) The functions are inline, so the resulting code won't differ. Instead of _byte, _word and _long I personally prefer something like _8, _16, _32 because _word and _long need interpretation. But this is only a matter of taste - the API change is more important. Regards, Stefan Weil
