On 18.06.2015 23:46, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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?
Peter, I discovered such a confusing behavior for PMCR register and decided to sort this out. > >> 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
