qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/14] sdhci: use deposit64()


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/14] sdhci: use deposit64()
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:07:06 -0300

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Alistair Francis
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
>>>> @@ -1123,12 +1123,10 @@ sdhci_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset, uint64_t 
>>>> val, unsigned size)
>>>>          MASKED_WRITE(s->admaerr, mask, value);
>>>>          break;
>>>>      case SDHC_ADMASYSADDR:
>>>> -        s->admasysaddr = (s->admasysaddr & (0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL |
>>>> -                (uint64_t)mask)) | (uint64_t)value;
>>>> +        s->admasysaddr = deposit64(s->admasysaddr, 32, 0, value);
>>>
>>> This doesn't look right.
>>>
>>> Originally we were masking admasysaddr with (mask and
>>> 0xFFFFFFFF00000000). Then ORing in the value.
>>>
>>> Now we are depositing value into a bit field that starts at bit 32 and
>>> has 0 length. I don't see how value will be deposited at all with a 0
>>> length.
>>
>> good catch :) I'll respin with:
>>
>>     case SDHC_ADMASYSADDR:
>>         s->admasysaddr = deposit64(s->admasysaddr, 0, 32, value)
>>         break;
>>     case SDHC_ADMASYSADDR + 4:
>>         s->admasysaddr = deposit64(s->admasysaddr, 32, 32, value);
>>         break;
>
> This still doesn't take the mask value into account though.
>
> Also, doesn't deposit() shift value up in this case? We want to mask
> the low bits out. I don't have the code in front of me though, so I
> could be wrong here.

We have sdhci_mmio_ops.max_access_size = 4, so value will be at most 32bits.

Now ADMASYSADDR is a 64-bit register, accessible in 2x32-bit.

/**
 * Deposit @fieldval into the 64 bit @value at the bit field specified
 * by the @start and @length parameters, and return the modified
 * @value. Bits of @value outside the bit field are not modified.

uint64_t deposit64(uint64_t value, int start, int length, uint64_t fieldval);

in both access we use length=32

at SDHC_ADMASYSADDR we use start=0,
while at SDHC_ADMASYSADDR + 4 we use start=32.

both deposit the 32b value (32b masked) into a 64b s->admasysaddr.

This is good to clarify this now, because the Spec v3 series (and
v4.20 if we want it) add a lot of them.

Regards,

Phil.



reply via email to

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