On 8/2/21 2:00 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 19:18, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote:
>>
>> Per the 'Physical Layer Simplified Specification Version 3.01',
>> Table 4-22: 'Block Oriented Write Protection Commands'
>>
>> SEND_WRITE_PROT (CMD30)
>>
>> If the card provides write protection features, this command asks
>> the card to send the status of the write protection bits [1].
>>
>> [1] 32 write protection bits (representing 32 write protect groups
>> starting at the specified address) [...]
>> The last (least significant) bit of the protection bits corresponds
>> to the first addressed group. If the addresses of the last groups
>> are outside the valid range, then the corresponding write protection
>> bits shall be set to 0.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
>> ---
>> hw/sd/sd.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/sd/sd.c b/hw/sd/sd.c
>> index 1f964e022b1..707dcc12a14 100644
>> --- a/hw/sd/sd.c
>> +++ b/hw/sd/sd.c
>> @@ -822,7 +822,14 @@ static uint32_t sd_wpbits(SDState *sd, uint64_t addr)
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < 32; i++, wpnum++, addr += WPGROUP_SIZE) {
>> assert(wpnum < sd->wpgrps_size);
>> - if (addr < sd->size && test_bit(wpnum, sd->wp_groups)) {
>> + if (addr >= sd->size) {
>> + /*
>> + * If the addresses of the last groups are outside the valid
>> range,
>> + * then the corresponding write protection bits shall be set to
>> 0.
>> + */
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + if (test_bit(wpnum, sd->wp_groups)) {
>
> Am I misreading it, or does this commit not actually change
> the behaviour of the code ?
Yes, I don't want to change the behaviour but document it
better.
>
>> ret |= (1 << i);
>> }
>> }
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>
> -- PMM
>
