qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] r2d: Flash memory creatio


From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 08/11] r2d: Flash memory creation is confused about size, mark FIXME
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 16:00:51 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2/26/19 8:34 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> pflash_cfi02_register() takes a size in bytes, a block size in bytes
>> and a number of blocks.  r2d_init() passes FLASH_SIZE, 16 * KiB,
>> FLASH_SIZE >> 16.  Does not compute: size doesn't match block size *
>> number of blocks.  The latter happens to win.  I tried to find
>> documentation on the physical hardware, no luck.
>> 
>> For now, adjust the byte size passed to match the actual size created,
>> and add a FIXME comment.
>> 
>> Cc: Magnus Damm <address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/sh4/r2d.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/hw/sh4/r2d.c b/hw/sh4/r2d.c
>> index dcdb3728cb..ed18d1f351 100644
>> --- a/hw/sh4/r2d.c
>> +++ b/hw/sh4/r2d.c
>> @@ -290,7 +290,14 @@ static void r2d_init(MachineState *machine)
>>  
>>      /* onboard flash memory */
>>      dinfo = drive_get(IF_PFLASH, 0, 0);
>> -    pflash_cfi02_register(0x0, NULL, "r2d.flash", FLASH_SIZE,
>> +    /*
>> +     * FIXME The code is confused about the size of the flash.  It
>> +     * used to pass FLASH_SIZE bytes, in FLASH_SIZE >> 16 blocks of
>> +     * 16KiB each, which does not compute, but creates one of
>> +     * FLASH_SIZE / 4 bytes anyway.  The current code does so too, but
>> +     * whether it's the right size is anybody's guess.
>> +     */
>> +    pflash_cfi02_register(0x0, NULL, "r2d.flash", FLASH_SIZE / 4,
>
> NAck, please see suggestion on v1:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-03/msg01206.html

I'll use that to replace this patch in v3.  Thanks!

[...]



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]