On Sat, 19 Feb 2022, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Liav Albani wrote:
On 2/19/22 13:19, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022, Liav Albani wrote:
Instead of letting each implementation to duplicate this code, we can
share these functions between IDE PIIX3/4 and VIA implementations.
OK but there's a way to take this even further as cmd646 also uses similar
functions just with more cases so you could remove the cases handled by
these functions and only leave the difference and call the default
function from the default case. E.g. (untested, just to show the idea):
hw/ide/cmd646.c:
static uint64_t bmdma_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
unsigned size)
{
BMDMAState *bm = opaque;
PCIDevice *pci_dev = PCI_DEVICE(bm->pci_dev);
uint32_t val;
if (size != 1) {
return ((uint64_t)1 << (size * 8)) - 1;
}
switch(addr & 3) {
case 1:
val = pci_dev->config[MRDMODE];
break;
case 3:
if (bm == &bm->pci_dev->bmdma[0]) {
val = pci_dev->config[UDIDETCR0];
} else {
val = pci_dev->config[UDIDETCR1];
}
break;
default:
val = bmdma_default_read(opaque, addr, size);
break;
}
trace_bmdma_read_cmd646(addr, val);
return val;
}
Yeah, I see how I can do that for both bmdma write and read of cmd646. I'll
send a v2 right away with a fix.
Maybe even the first if that's already contained in the default function
could be avoided with some reorganisation like
if (size == 1) {
remaining switch cases to set val
} else {
val = bmdma_default_read();
}
On second thought this misses the cases where size == 1 and addr is those
handeled in bmdma_default_read so one would still need the default case in
the if part and then it's not much better than duplicating the if. Maybe
calling the default first, then handling the remaining cases, like
val = bmdma_default_read();
if (size == 1) {
remaining switch cases to set val
}
return val;
is the simplest and avoids the duplicated if. (Now we only have two trace
messages instead of one but that's probably not a problem as it's only a
debugging aid.
Regards.
BALATON Zoltan
but I wasn't sure that won't change anything so may need a bit more thought.
Signed-off-by: Liav Albani <[email protected]>
---
hw/ide/pci.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
hw/ide/piix.c | 50 ++-----------------------------------------
hw/ide/via.c | 51 ++------------------------------------------
include/hw/ide/pci.h | 4 ++++
4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ide/pci.c b/hw/ide/pci.c
index 84ba733548..c8b867659a 100644
--- a/hw/ide/pci.c
+++ b/hw/ide/pci.c
@@ -502,6 +502,53 @@ static const struct IDEDMAOps bmdma_ops = {
.reset = bmdma_reset,
};
+uint64_t bmdma_default_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
+ unsigned size)
Indentation off? Also everywhere else, usually we indent not with the
parenthesis but with the list within. (Auto indent in most editors does
that probably.)
I guess you mean that it should be:
+uint64_t bmdma_default_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
+ unsigned size)
Like this?
No, like the code you've moved had it. The split line should start after the
( not on the same column. So:
uint64_t bmdma_default_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
unsigned size)
but this line does not need to be split at all as it fits within 80 chars so
better to keep it one line and only split where needed.
I'm using Visual Studio Code, so I might not have the correct settings for
this editor with QEMU.
The checkpatch script doesn't complain on style issues, so what can I do to
make this correct?
If checkpatch is happy then probably not a problem but just look at how code
is indented on other places and follow the same. The coding style doc may
have some words on it too. I don't know what setting Visual Studio might
need.
Regards,
BALATON Zoltan
