On 10/12/20 3:55 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
The PCI_ADDR() macro use generic PCI fields shifted by 8-bit.
Rewrite it extracting the shift operation one layer.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
---
hw/pci-host/bonito.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/pci-host/bonito.c b/hw/pci-host/bonito.c
index a99eced0657..abb3ee86769 100644
--- a/hw/pci-host/bonito.c
+++ b/hw/pci-host/bonito.c
@@ -196,8 +196,8 @@ FIELD(BONGENCFG, PCIQUEUE, 12, 1)
#define PCI_IDSEL_VIA686B (1 << PCI_IDSEL_VIA686B_BIT)
#define PCI_ADDR(busno , devno , funno , regno) \
- ((((busno) << 16) & 0xff0000) + (((devno) << 11) & 0xf800) + \
- (((funno) << 8) & 0x700) + (regno))
+ ((((busno) << 8) & 0xff00) + (((devno) << 3) & 0xf8) + \
+ (((funno) & 0x7) << 8) + (regno))
Are you missing a << 8 somewhere before + (regno) or both of these are
equally unreadable and I've missed something? This seems to be
completely replaced by next patch so what's the point of this change?
I might have missed a parenthesis somewhere indeed =)
I'm happy to merge it in the next patch, I thought it would
be easier to review but it isn't.
Thanks for reviewing!
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
typedef struct BonitoState BonitoState;
