On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 1/15/20 7:15 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Igor Mammedov wrote:
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
The firmware has to reside in the PDC range. If the Elf file
expects to load it below FIRMWARE_START, it is incorrect,
regardless the RAM size.
Acked-by: Helge Deller <del...@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
---
hw/hppa/machine.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/hw/hppa/machine.c b/hw/hppa/machine.c
index 5d0de26..6775d87 100644
--- a/hw/hppa/machine.c
+++ b/hw/hppa/machine.c
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ static void machine_hppa_init(MachineState *machine)
qemu_log_mask(CPU_LOG_PAGE, "Firmware loaded at 0x%08" PRIx64
"-0x%08" PRIx64 ", entry at 0x%08" PRIx64 ".\n",
firmware_low, firmware_high, firmware_entry);
- if (firmware_low < ram_size || firmware_high >= FIRMWARE_END) {
+ if (firmware_low < FIRMWARE_START || firmware_high >= FIRMWARE_END) {
error_report("Firmware overlaps with memory or IO space");
exit(1);
Should this also be EXIT_FAILURE like in other places when you're changing
the line nearby?
I didn't changed this line, this seems unrelated to the patch purpose.
Fair enough. Just thought because there was patch 85/86 making that change
to keep consistency. Maybe you can change this in that patch but I don't
really mind just spotted it.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
