On 17 June 2015 at 16:25, Sergey Fedorov <serge.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > cp_reg_reset() is called from g_hash_table_foreach() which does not > define a specific ordering of the hash table iteration. Thus doing reset > for registers marked as ALIAS would give an ambiguous result when > resetvalue is different for original and alias resisters.
Was this actually the case for any of our registers? ie, is this patch fixing a bug, or just cleaning up a potential cause of confusion? > Exit > cp_reg_reset() early when passed an alias register. Then clean up alias > register definitions from needless resetvalue and resetfn. > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov <serge.f...@gmail.com> I've applied it to target-arm.next, but if this is fixing a bug it would be nice if I could update the commit message to say so. thanks -- PMM
