Re: Is the ppc440 "bamboo" board in QEMU still of any use?

[Thomas Huth]

On 14/10/2021 17.58, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 16:37, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> > On 14/10/2021 17.26, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > On 10/14/21 13:29, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> > > > On 10/14/21 12:34, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I have the following change in QEMU to be able to run the bamboo,
> > > > > found it some time ago via google (can't remember where):
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c
> > > > > index 8147ba6f94..600e89e791 100644
> > > > > --- a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c
> > > > > +++ b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c
> > > > > @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static int ppc4xx_pci_map_irq(PCIDevice *pci_dev,
> > > > > int irq_num)
> > > > >
> > > > >        trace_ppc4xx_pci_map_irq(pci_dev->devfn, irq_num, slot);
> > > > >
> > > > > -    return slot - 1;
> > > > > +    return slot ? slot - 1 : slot;
> > > > >    }
> > > > >
> > > > >    static void ppc4xx_pci_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq_num, int level)
> > > >
> > > > could you try to use :
> > > >
> > > > static inline int ppce500_pci_map_irq_slot(int devno, int irq_num)
> > > > {
> > > >      return (devno + irq_num) % 4;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Is this pci_swizzle()?
> >
> > It's pci_swizzle, but I don't think that we should take irq_num into 
> > account here. The comment right in front of the function says:
> >
> >   On Bamboo, all pins from each slot are tied to a single board IRQ
> >
> > Similar comment in pc-bios/bamboo.dts:
> >
> >   Bamboo has all 4 IRQ pins tied together per slot
> >
> > So the return value should only depend on the slot number.
> >
> > Not sure how to properly fix this yet, though.
> >
> >   Thomas
> >
> >
> > PS: Found a working pre-compiled kernel for bamboo:
> > http://landley.net/aboriginal/downloads/binaries/system-image-powerpc-440fp.tar.gz 
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Did you see my reply from earlier today? Last time I checked the backtrace 
> from the assert() it was coming via pci_update_irq_disabled() although 
> that's not to say that something else could have changed since the original 
> thread.

Yes, I saw it ... it's just that I'm still in process of digesting the 
problem here .... I'll reply to that mail later, when I feel more confident 
with the topic...

 Thomas