Hi Zoltan,
On 11/10/23 15:31, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Apparently l2sram_update_mappings() bit-rotted over time,
when defining MAP_L2SRAM we get:
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:83:17: error: no member named 'isarc' in 'struct
ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
if (l2sram->isarc != isarc ||
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:84:18: error: no member named 'isacntl' in 'struct
ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
(l2sram->isacntl & 0x80000000) != (isacntl & 0x80000000)) {
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:85:21: error: no member named 'isacntl' in 'struct
ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
if (l2sram->isacntl & 0x80000000) {
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:88:50: error: no member named 'isarc_ram' in
'struct ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
&l2sram->isarc_ram);
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:93:50: error: no member named 'isarc_ram' in
'struct ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
&l2sram->isarc_ram);
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:96:17: error: no member named 'dsarc' in 'struct
ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
if (l2sram->dsarc != dsarc ||
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:97:18: error: no member named 'dsacntl' in 'struct
ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
(l2sram->dsacntl & 0x80000000) != (dsacntl & 0x80000000)) {
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:98:21: error: no member named 'dsacntl' in 'struct
ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
if (l2sram->dsacntl & 0x80000000) {
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:100:52: error: no member named 'dsarc' in 'struct
ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
if (!(isacntl & 0x80000000) || l2sram->dsarc != isarc) {
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:103:54: error: no member named 'dsarc_ram' in
'struct ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
&l2sram->dsarc_ram);
~~~~~~ ^
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c:111:54: error: no member named 'dsarc_ram' in
'struct ppc4xx_l2sram_t'
&l2sram->dsarc_ram);
~~~~~~ ^
Remove that dead code.
I missed to remove:
-- >8 --
diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c b/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c
index 3a66b0c7f7..1312aa2080 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c
@@ -154,7 +154,6 @@ static void dcr_write_l2sram(void *opaque, int dcrn,
uint32_t val)
/*l2sram->isram1[dcrn - DCR_L2CACHE_BASE] = val;*/
break;
}
- /*l2sram_update_mappings(l2sram, isarc, isacntl, dsarc, dsacntl);*/
}
static void l2sram_reset(void *opaque)
@@ -164,7 +163,6 @@ static void l2sram_reset(void *opaque)
memset(l2sram->l2cache, 0, sizeof(l2sram->l2cache));
l2sram->l2cache[DCR_L2CACHE_STAT - DCR_L2CACHE_BASE] = 0x80000000;
memset(l2sram->isram0, 0, sizeof(l2sram->isram0));
- /*l2sram_update_mappings(l2sram, isarc, isacntl, dsarc, dsacntl);*/
}
---
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
---
hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c | 40 ----------------------------------------
1 file changed, 40 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c b/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c
index 4181c843a8..643a79e330 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/ppc440_uc.c
@@ -73,46 +73,6 @@ typedef struct ppc4xx_l2sram_t {
uint32_t isram0[11];
} ppc4xx_l2sram_t;
-#ifdef MAP_L2SRAM
-static void l2sram_update_mappings(ppc4xx_l2sram_t *l2sram,
- uint32_t isarc, uint32_t isacntl,
- uint32_t dsarc, uint32_t dsacntl)
If you remove this then nobody will remember this could be modelled or
may be fixed so maybe leave it as a reminder for now.
We can keep this code if someone fix it and enable it (convert the
definition to a static boolean). Some APIs are being modified, we can
not test modifications in such dead code. Even converting to a comment
doesn't seem useful.
Maybe you can add a comment "If you are interested in ..., see
l2sram_update_mappings() draft implementation in
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-02/msg04261.html";?
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
