On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 12:00 AM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 20/09/2022 00.37, Patrick Venture wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 5:44 AM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com > > <mailto:th...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On 06/09/2022 18.31, Patrick Venture wrote: > > > The register tests walks all the registers to verify they are > initially > > > 0 when appropriate. However, if the MAC address is set in the > register > > > space, this should not be checked against 0. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Hao Wu <wuhao...@google.com <mailto: > wuhao...@google.com>> > > > Change-Id: I02426e39bdab33ceedd42c49d233e8680d4ec058 > > > > What's that change-id good for? > > > > > > Oops, sorry about that. I can send out a v2 without it, or during > > application someone can nicely trim it? :) > > I can take the patch through my qtest branch - I'll drop the line there. > > > Basically ack, but one question: Where should that non-zero MAC > address > > come > > from / when did you hit a problem here? If QEMU is started without > any mac > > settings at all (like it is done here), the register never contains a > > non-zero value, does it? > > > > > > So, there's a bug in the emc device presently where that value isn't set > > when it should be. I have that bug fixed, but for whatever reason, > probably > > not enough caffeine, I didn't bundle the two patches together. > > OK, makes sense now, thanks for the explanation! > The follow-on patch was just applied to arm.next, so I wanted to check if this was applied to your .next or if you wanted a v2. > > Thomas > > >
