On 09/08/2018 01:06 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi Cédric,
>
> On 8/31/18 7:38 AM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> 0xFFFFFFFF should be returned for non implemented registers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org>
>> ---
>> hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
>> index 1270842dcf0c..6045ca11b969 100644
>> --- a/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
>> +++ b/hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c
>> @@ -665,12 +665,12 @@ static uint64_t aspeed_smc_read(void *opaque, hwaddr
>> addr, unsigned int size)
>> addr == s->r_ce_ctrl ||
>> addr == R_INTR_CTRL ||
>> (addr >= R_SEG_ADDR0 && addr < R_SEG_ADDR0 + s->ctrl->max_slaves) ||
>> - (addr >= s->r_ctrl0 && addr < s->r_ctrl0 + s->num_cs)) {
>> + (addr >= s->r_ctrl0 && addr < s->r_ctrl0 + s->ctrl->max_slaves)) {
>
> This change seems unrelated to this commit.
The controller should have one control register for each flash device
if there is no CS available.
The problem is that s->num_cs is a QEMU software concept representing
the number of flash devices handled by a board where as 'ctrl->max_slaves'
is a HW limit representing the maximum number of flash devices a
controller can handle.
Thanks,
C.
>> return s->regs[addr];
>> } else {
>> qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "%s: not implemented: 0x%" HWADDR_PRIx
>> "\n",
>> __func__, addr);
>> - return 0;
>> + return -1;
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
