On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 30 August 2017 at 19:02, Alistair Francis
> <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>> Instead of using the hardcoded (MemTxAttrs){0} for no memory attributes
>> let's use the already defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com>
>> ---
>>
>> target/xtensa/op_helper.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/xtensa/op_helper.c b/target/xtensa/op_helper.c
>> index 519fbeddd6..3d990c0caa 100644
>> --- a/target/xtensa/op_helper.c
>> +++ b/target/xtensa/op_helper.c
>> @@ -1025,11 +1025,11 @@ void HELPER(ule_s)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t br,
>> float32 a, float32 b)
>> uint32_t HELPER(rer)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t addr)
>> {
>> return address_space_ldl(env->address_space_er, addr,
>> - (MemTxAttrs){0}, NULL);
>> + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> void HELPER(wer)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t data, uint32_t addr)
>> {
>> address_space_stl(env->address_space_er, addr, data,
>> - (MemTxAttrs){0}, NULL);
>> + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, NULL);
>> }
>
> Might be worth noting in the commit that this is technically
> a change of behaviour, because MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED
> sets the 'unspecified' field to 1 whereas {0} doesn't.
> I don't think anything actually checks that field, though.
Good point, I have added something to the commit message to indicate
that. It'll be included in v2.
Thanks,
Alistair
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
