qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH arm-devs v1 08/13] net/cadence_gem: Implement SA


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH arm-devs v1 08/13] net/cadence_gem: Implement SAR (de)activation
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:23:17 +0000

On 2 December 2013 07:13, Peter Crosthwaite
<address@hidden> wrote:
> The Specific address registers can be enabled or disabled by software.
> QEMU was assuming they where always enabled. Implement the

"were"

> disable/enable feature. SARs are disabled by writing to the lower half
> register. They are re-enabled by then writing the upper half.
>
> Reported-by: Deepika Dhamija <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <address@hidden>
> ---
>
>  hw/net/cadence_gem.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/net/cadence_gem.c b/hw/net/cadence_gem.c
> index 6f11d6a..c6eb9ab 100644
> --- a/hw/net/cadence_gem.c
> +++ b/hw/net/cadence_gem.c
> @@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ typedef struct GemState {
>
>      unsigned rx_desc[2];
>
> +    bool sar_active[4];

This state needs to be added to the VMState struct as well.

>  } GemState;
>
>  /* The broadcast MAC address: 0xFFFFFFFFFFFF */
> @@ -603,7 +604,7 @@ static int gem_mac_address_filter(GemState *s, const 
> uint8_t *packet)
>      /* Check all 4 specific addresses */
>      gem_spaddr = (uint8_t *)&(s->regs[GEM_SPADDR1LO]);
>      for (i = 3; i >= 0; i--) {
> -        if (!memcmp(packet, gem_spaddr + 8 * i, 6)) {
> +        if (s->sar_active[i] && !memcmp(packet, gem_spaddr + 8 * i, 6)) {
>              return GEM_RX_SAR_ACCEPT + i;
>          }
>      }
> @@ -985,6 +986,7 @@ static void gem_phy_reset(GemState *s)
>
>  static void gem_reset(DeviceState *d)
>  {
> +    int i;
>      GemState *s = GEM(d);
>
>      DB_PRINT("\n");
> @@ -1004,6 +1006,10 @@ static void gem_reset(DeviceState *d)
>      s->regs[GEM_DESCONF5] = 0x002f2145;
>      s->regs[GEM_DESCONF6] = 0x00000200;
>
> +    for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {

"i++" is more idiomatic for C.

Otherwise looks good.

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

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