On 9/25/18 2:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 September 2018 at 17:19, Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote:
>> 0xFFFFFFFF should be returned for non implemented registers.
>>
>> Also,
>
> Use of "Also" in a commit message often indicates that it
> would be better to split the commit. The two changes here
> don't seem to me to have much to do with each other.
They do in the symptom which is to expose the correct register
values. But I won't argue and next version will introduce two
patches :)
Thanks,
C.
>> the model should expose one control register per possible CS
>> even if there is no flash device attached. When testing the validity
>> of the register number in the read operation, replace 's->num_cs' by
>> 'ctrl->max_slaves' which represents the maximum number of flash
>> devices a controller can handle.
>>
>> 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)) {
>
> The commit message mentions changing the upper bound on the
> address check here and also the unimplemented-register return
> value, but this change also seems to be changing the lower bound
> in the check ?
>
>> return s->regs[addr];
>> } else {
>> qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "%s: not implemented: 0x%" HWADDR_PRIx
>> "\n",
>> __func__, addr);
>> - return 0;
>> + return -1;
>> }
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
