From patchwork Thu Aug 2 17:40:42 2018 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Peter Maydell X-Patchwork-Id: 952934 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org (client-ip=2001:4830:134:3::11; helo=lists.gnu.org; envelope-from=qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:4830:134:3::11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41hHZr41kSz9s3q for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2018 03:43:16 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:47155 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flHd4-00068D-5K for incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:43:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60463) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flHax-0004TY-Be for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:41:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flHav-0003db-I3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:41:03 -0400 Received: from orth.archaic.org.uk ([2001:8b0:1d0::2]:43954) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1flHav-0003Ke-6q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 13:41:01 -0400 Received: from pm215 by orth.archaic.org.uk with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1flHag-0006U7-Jw; Thu, 02 Aug 2018 18:40:46 +0100 From: Peter Maydell To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 18:40:42 +0100 Message-Id: <20180802174042.29234-3-peter.maydell@linaro.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <20180802174042.29234-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> References: <20180802174042.29234-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2001:8b0:1d0::2 Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2] hw/net/pcnet-pci: Unify pcnet_ioport_read/write and pcnet_mmio_read/write X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jason Wang , patches@linaro.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" The only difference between our implementation of the pcnet ioport accessors and the mmio accessors is that the former check BCR_DWIO to see what access widths are permitted for addresses in the aprom range (0x0..0xf). In fact our failure to do this in the mmio accessors is a bug (one which was fixed for the ioport accessors in commit 7ba79741970 in 2011). The data sheet for the Am79C970A does not describe the DWIO bit as only applying for I/O space mapped I/O resources and not memory mapped I/O resources, and our MMIO accessors already honour DWIO for accesses in the 0x10..0x1f range (since the pcnet_ioport_{read,write}{w,l} functions check it). The data sheet for the later but compatible Am79C976 is clearer: it states specifically "DWIO mode applies to both I/O- and memory-mapped acceses." This seems to be reasonable evidence in favour of interpretating the Am79C970A spec as being the same. (NB: Linux's pcnet driver only supports I/O accesses, so the MMIO access part of this device is probably untested anyway.) Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell --- hw/net/pcnet-pci.c | 67 ++------------------------------------------- hw/net/trace-events | 2 -- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c b/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c index 248fb3ba299..7c738557830 100644 --- a/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c +++ b/hw/net/pcnet-pci.c @@ -139,69 +139,6 @@ static const MemoryRegionOps pcnet_io_ops = { .endianness = DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN, }; -/* - * TODO: should MMIO accesses to the addresses corresponding to the - * APROM also honour the BCR_DWIO() setting? If so, then these functions - * and pcnet_ioport_write/pcnet_ioport_read could be merged. - * If not, then should pcnet_ioport_{read,write}{w,l} really check - * BCR_DWIO() for MMIO writes ? - */ -static void pcnet_mmio_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, uint64_t value, - unsigned size) -{ - PCNetState *d = opaque; - - trace_pcnet_mmio_write(opaque, addr, size, val); - - if (addr < 0x10) { - if (size == 1) { - pcnet_aprom_writeb(d, addr, data); - } else if ((addr & 1) == 0 && size == 2) { - pcnet_aprom_writeb(d, addr, data & 0xff); - pcnet_aprom_writeb(d, addr + 1, data >> 8); - } else if ((addr & 3) == 0 && size == 4) { - pcnet_aprom_writeb(d, addr, data & 0xff); - pcnet_aprom_writeb(d, addr + 1, (data >> 8) & 0xff); - pcnet_aprom_writeb(d, addr + 2, (data >> 16) & 0xff); - pcnet_aprom_writeb(d, addr + 3, data >> 24); - } - } else { - if (size == 2) { - pcnet_ioport_writew(d, addr, data); - } else if (size == 4) { - pcnet_ioport_writel(d, addr, data); - } - } -} - -static uint64_t pcnet_mmio_read(void *opque, hwaddr addr, unsigned size) -{ - PCNetState *d = opaque; - - trace_pcnet_ioport_read(opaque, addr, size); - - if (addr < 0x10) { - if (size == 1) { - return pcnet_aprom_readb(d, addr); - } else if ((addr & 1) == 0 && size == 2) { - return pcnet_aprom_readb(d, addr) | - (pcnet_aprom_readb(d, addr + 1) << 8); - } else if ((addr & 3) == 0 && size == 4) { - return pcnet_aprom_readb(d, addr) | - (pcnet_aprom_readb(d, addr + 1) << 8) | - (pcnet_aprom_readb(d, addr + 2) << 16) | - (pcnet_aprom_readb(d, addr + 3) << 24); - } - } else { - if (size == 2) { - return pcnet_ioport_readw(d, addr); - } else if (size == 4) { - return pcnet_ioport_readl(d, addr); - } - } - return ((uint64_t)1 << (size * 8)) - 1; -} - static const VMStateDescription vmstate_pci_pcnet = { .name = "pcnet", .version_id = 3, @@ -216,8 +153,8 @@ static const VMStateDescription vmstate_pci_pcnet = { /* PCI interface */ static const MemoryRegionOps pcnet_mmio_ops = { - .read = pcnet_mmio_read, - .write = pcnet_mmio_write, + .read = pcnet_ioport_read, + .write = pcnet_ioport_write, .valid.min_access_size = 1, .valid.max_access_size = 4, .impl.min_access_size = 1, diff --git a/hw/net/trace-events b/hw/net/trace-events index 5cd0ad50ce2..c1dea4b1562 100644 --- a/hw/net/trace-events +++ b/hw/net/trace-events @@ -61,8 +61,6 @@ pcnet_aprom_writeb(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) "opaque=%p addr=0x pcnet_aprom_readb(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) "opaque=%p addr=0x%08x val=0x%02x" pcnet_ioport_read(void *opaque, uint64_t addr, unsigned size) "opaque=%p addr=0x%"PRIx64" size=%d" pcnet_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint64_t addr, uint64_t data, unsigned size) "opaque=%p addr=0x%"PRIx64" data=0x%"PRIx64" size=%d" -pcnet_mmio_write(void *opaque, uint64_t addr, uint32_t val, unsigned size) "opaque=%p addr=0x%"PRIx64" val=0x%x size=%d" -pcnet_mmio_read(void *opaque, uint64_t addr, unsigned size) "opaque=%p addr=0x%"PRIx64" size=%d" # hw/net/net_rx_pkt.c net_rx_pkt_parsed(bool ip4, bool ip6, bool udp, bool tcp, size_t l3o, size_t l4o, size_t l5o) "RX packet parsed: ip4: %d, ip6: %d, udp: %d, tcp: %d, l3 offset: %zu, l4 offset: %zu, l5 offset: %zu"