qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQ


From: Jan Kiszka
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 5/5] i8259: fix dynamically masking slave IRQs with IMR register
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:54:15 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666

On 2012-09-03 17:52, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/03/2012 06:42 PM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Avi Kivity <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2012 11:40 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Am 03.09.2012 04:56, schrieb Matthew Ogilvie:
>>>>> diff --git a/hw/i8259_common.c b/hw/i8259_common.c
>>>>> index ab3d98b..dcde5f2 100644
>>>>> --- a/hw/i8259_common.c
>>>>> +++ b/hw/i8259_common.c
>>>> [...]
>>>>> @@ -111,6 +112,7 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_pic_common = {
>>>>>          VMSTATE_UINT8(isr, PICCommonState),
>>>>>          VMSTATE_UINT8(priority_add, PICCommonState),
>>>>>          VMSTATE_UINT8(irq_base, PICCommonState),
>>>>> +        VMSTATE_UINT8(icw3, PICCommonState),
>>>>>          VMSTATE_UINT8(read_reg_select, PICCommonState),
>>>>>          VMSTATE_UINT8(poll, PICCommonState),
>>>>>          VMSTATE_UINT8(special_mask, PICCommonState),
>>>>
>>>> Additional VMState needs to be versioned by incrementing .version_id and
>>>> by specifying the new version number here. Otherwise it breaks migration.
>>
>> For the subsection, only sending this when icw3 != 0 is enough?  I am
>> searching for a test about when we need to send it.
> 
> Looks like the optimal condition is ((s->icw3 & ~s->eclr) != 0) (i.e.
> bit set in icw3 but clear in eclr).

The standard PC values are optimal: 4 for master, 2 for slave.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux



reply via email to

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