qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/14] sdhci: use qemu_log_mask(UNIMP) instead o


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 10/14] sdhci: use qemu_log_mask(UNIMP) instead of fprintf()
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:14:53 -0300

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Alistair Francis
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/sd/sdhci.c | 7 ++++---
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/sd/sdhci.c b/hw/sd/sdhci.c
>> index 044e3d62f1..8fcd48f849 100644
>> --- a/hw/sd/sdhci.c
>> +++ b/hw/sd/sdhci.c
>> @@ -936,7 +936,8 @@ static uint64_t sdhci_read(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, 
>> unsigned size)
>>          ret = (SD_HOST_SPECv2_VERS << 16) | sdhci_slotint(s);
>>          break;
>>      default:
>> -        ERRPRINT("bad %ub read: addr[0x%04x]\n", size, (int)offset);
>> +        qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "SDHC rd_%ub @0x%02" HWADDR_PRIx " "
>> +                      "not implemented\n", size, offset);
>
> Is this actually unimplemented? Or is it just a guest error?

So far we don't have those registers implemented, that's why I decided
to use UNIMP to remove the fprintf().

This log become useful when we pretend to support the Spec v3, as the
guest start using register we don't have yet implemented.

However depending on the Spec version implemented, this might be a GUEST_ERROR.

I'll sort this out for the current version, v2 (we don't care about v1
since all QEMU models support at least v2).

Thanks,

Phil.



reply via email to

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