On 05/02/2022 12:06, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2022, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 5/2/22 11:51, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
On 27/01/2022 23:16, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
These are intended to make it easier to see how the physical control lines
are wired for each instance.
Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>
---
include/hw/misc/mos6522.h | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/hw/misc/mos6522.h b/include/hw/misc/mos6522.h
index fc95d22b0f..12abd8b8d2 100644
--- a/include/hw/misc/mos6522.h
+++ b/include/hw/misc/mos6522.h
@@ -41,13 +41,21 @@
#define IER_SET 0x80 /* set bits in IER */
#define IER_CLR 0 /* clear bits in IER */
-#define CA2_INT 0x01
-#define CA1_INT 0x02
-#define SR_INT 0x04 /* Shift register full/empty */
-#define CB2_INT 0x08
-#define CB1_INT 0x10
-#define T2_INT 0x20 /* Timer 2 interrupt */
-#define T1_INT 0x40 /* Timer 1 interrupt */
+#define CA2_INT_BIT 0
+#define CA1_INT_BIT 1
+#define SR_INT_BIT 2 /* Shift register full/empty */
+#define CB2_INT_BIT 3
+#define CB1_INT_BIT 4
+#define T2_INT_BIT 5 /* Timer 2 interrupt */
+#define T1_INT_BIT 6 /* Timer 1 interrupt */
+
+#define CA2_INT (1 << CA2_INT_BIT)
+#define CA1_INT (1 << CA1_INT_BIT)
+#define SR_INT (1 << SR_INT_BIT)
+#define CB2_INT (1 << CB2_INT_BIT)
+#define CB1_INT (1 << CB1_INT_BIT)
+#define T2_INT (1 << T2_INT_BIT)
+#define T1_INT (1 << T1_INT_BIT)
Maybe you could leave the #defines called XX_INT and then use BIT(XX_INT) instead
of the second set of #defines which would provide same readability but with less
#defines needed.
I'm not so keen on removing the _INT defines since that would require updating all
users to use BIT() everywhere which I don't think gains us much. I could certainly
replace these definitions with BIT(FOO) instead of (1 << FOO) if that helps
readability though.
Do you mean simply doing this?
-#define T1_INT 0x40 /* Timer 1 interrupt */
+#define T1_INT BIT(6) /* Timer 1 interrupt */
I meant:
#define T1_INT 6
and then replace current usage of T1_INT with BIT(T1_INT) that way we don't need both
T1_INT_BIT and T1_INT defines which seems redundant as BIT(T1_INT) is not much longer
and still clear what it refers to. It's true that this needs more changes but the
result is more readable IMO than introducing another set of defines that ome has to
look up when encounters them as the meaning might not be clear. That's why I think
one set of defines for bit numbers and using existing BIT(num) for values is better
but it's just an idea, I don't care that much.
I think the best solution here is to just use BIT() for the final shifted values like
this:
#define CA2_INT_BIT 0
...
...
#define CA2_INT BIT(CA2_INT_BIT)
Otherwise I can see there being confusion given that the BIT() macro is used for
defines without a _BIT suffix which are also being used elsewhere. I'll update this
in v2 accordingly.
ATB,
Mark.
