On 1/2/23 04:35, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
When a register has effective bits fewer than their width, the old code inconsistently masked when writing or reading. Make the code consistent by always masking when writing, and remove some code duplication.Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com> --- hw/net/e1000e_core.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/net/e1000e_core.c b/hw/net/e1000e_core.c index 181c1e0c2a..e6fc85ea51 100644 --- a/hw/net/e1000e_core.c +++ b/hw/net/e1000e_core.c @@ -2440,17 +2440,19 @@ e1000e_set_fcrtl(E1000ECore *core, int index, uint32_t val) core->mac[FCRTL] = val & 0x8000FFF8; }-static inline void-e1000e_set_16bit(E1000ECore *core, int index, uint32_t val) -{ - core->mac[index] = val & 0xffff; -} +#define E1000E_LOW_BITS_SET_FUNC(num) \ + static void \ + e1000e_set_##num##bit(E1000ECore *core, int index, uint32_t val) \ + { \ + core->mac[index] = val & (BIT(num) - 1); \ + }-static void-e1000e_set_12bit(E1000ECore *core, int index, uint32_t val) -{ - core->mac[index] = val & 0xfff; -} +E1000E_LOW_BITS_SET_FUNC(4) +E1000E_LOW_BITS_SET_FUNC(6) +E1000E_LOW_BITS_SET_FUNC(11) +E1000E_LOW_BITS_SET_FUNC(12) +E1000E_LOW_BITS_SET_FUNC(13) +E1000E_LOW_BITS_SET_FUNC(16)
This looks correct but is hard to be sure, too many changes at once (for my taste at least). Split suggestions: - move macros and 6/16-bit masks - move 4/11 masks - move 13-bit mask Or: - move macros and 13-bit masks - move the rest Except if Jason is OK to merge as is.
