On 2011-09-12 12:50, Avi Kivity wrote:
> From: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net>
>
> The only non-obvious part is pic_poll_read which used
> "addr1 >> 7" to detect whether one referred to either
> the master or slave PIC. Instead, test this directly.
I've an unfinished queue here that, among other things, took some of
the PIC mess away via
--- a/hw/ppc_prep.c
+++ b/hw/ppc_prep.c
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static inline uint32_t _PPC_intack_read(target_phys_addr_t
addr)
uint32_t retval = 0;
if ((addr & 0xf) == 0)
- retval = pic_intack_read(isa_pic);
+ retval = pic_read_irq(isa_pic);
#if 0
printf("%s: 0x" TARGET_FMT_plx " <= %08" PRIx32 "\n", __func__, addr,
retval);
I've found no regression in prep due to this and was able to kill both
pic_poll_read and pic_intack_read this way.
I've no problem to (later on) rebase my PIC refactorings (properly
decouple both chips and qdev'ify them) on top of this, but maybe the
prep cleanup would already make this patch nicer. Should I break out
that patch?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
