qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-riscv] [PATCH] riscv: sifive_e: Correct various S


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-riscv] [PATCH] riscv: sifive_e: Correct various SoC IP block sizes
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:06:54 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0

On 8/5/19 8:43 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:14 PM Chih-Min Chao <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 8:27 AM Bin Meng <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some of the SoC IP block sizes are wrong. Correct them according
>>> to the FE310 manual.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  hw/riscv/sifive_e.c | 6 +++---
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c b/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c
>>> index 2a499d8..9655847 100644
>>> --- a/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c
>>> +++ b/hw/riscv/sifive_e.c
>>> @@ -53,13 +53,13 @@ static const struct MemmapEntry {
>>>      hwaddr base;
>>>      hwaddr size;
>>>  } sifive_e_memmap[] = {
>>> -    [SIFIVE_E_DEBUG] =    {        0x0,      0x100 },
>>> +    [SIFIVE_E_DEBUG] =    {        0x0,     0x1000 },
>>>      [SIFIVE_E_MROM] =     {     0x1000,     0x2000 },
>>>      [SIFIVE_E_OTP] =      {    0x20000,     0x2000 },
>>>      [SIFIVE_E_CLINT] =    {  0x2000000,    0x10000 },
>>>      [SIFIVE_E_PLIC] =     {  0xc000000,  0x4000000 },
>>> -    [SIFIVE_E_AON] =      { 0x10000000,     0x8000 },
>>> -    [SIFIVE_E_PRCI] =     { 0x10008000,     0x8000 },
>>> +    [SIFIVE_E_AON] =      { 0x10000000,     0x1000 },
>>> +    [SIFIVE_E_PRCI] =     { 0x10008000,     0x1000 },
>>>      [SIFIVE_E_OTP_CTRL] = { 0x10010000,     0x1000 },
>>>      [SIFIVE_E_GPIO0] =    { 0x10012000,     0x1000 },
>>>      [SIFIVE_E_UART0] =    { 0x10013000,     0x1000 },
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>>
>>
>> It seems the modification follows  E310-G002(Hifive1 Rev B) spec and the 
>> origin is for E310-G000(Hifive1) spec.
>> There should be some way to specify different board version with different 
>> memory map or we have policy, always support the latest spec.

I agree with Chao, it would be cleaner to have two different boards
(machines).
Since the SoCs are very similar, you could add a 'revision' property and
use it to select the correct map.

>>
> 
> Yes, I checked both specs. The older spec says these bigger sizes,
> however their register sizes fit well in the smaller range as well. So
> I think the modification works well for both.

This is OK for the PRCI, since sifive_prci_create() does not use
memmap[SIFIVE_E_PRCI].size.

However the AON case is borderline, since you shrink it from 32KiB to 4KiB.

BTW (not related to this patch) it is odd a function named
sifive_mmio_emulate() creates a RAM region with memory_region_init_ram()
and does not use the UnimplementedDevice (see make_unimp_dev() in
hw/arm/musca.c).

> 
> Regards,
> Bin
> 



reply via email to

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