i got this error
hw/net/e1000.c: In function 'set_phy_ctrl':
hw/net/e1000.c:209:10: warning: implicit declaration of function 'set_ics'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
          set_ics(s, 0, E1000_ICR_LSC);
          ^
hw/net/e1000.c:209:10: warning: nested extern declaration of 'set_ics'
[-Wnested-externs]
hw/net/e1000.c: At top level:
hw/net/e1000.c:351:1: warning: conflicting types for 'set_ics' [enabled by
default]
 set_ics(E1000State *s, int index, uint32_t val)
 ^
hw/net/e1000.c:351:1: error: static declaration of 'set_ics' follows
non-static declaration
hw/net/e1000.c:209:10: note: previous implicit declaration of 'set_ics' was
here
          set_ics(s, 0, E1000_ICR_LSC);
          ^
/data/dev/xen/xen-git/src/xen-build/tools/qemu-xen-dir/rules.mak:25: recipe
for target 'hw/net/e1000.o' failed



On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, jacek burghardt
<jaceksburgha...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I am in process of recompiling qemu right now
> I came up with this patch is this correct
> diff -Naur qemu/hw/net/e1000.c qemu-a/hw/net/e1000.c
> --- qemu/hw/net/e1000.c 2013-10-27 15:36:05.496526538 -0600
> +++ qemu-a/hw/net/e1000.c       2013-10-30 18:09:03.101711694 -0600
> @@ -203,6 +203,12 @@
>          DBGOUT(PHY, "Start link auto negotiation\n");
>          timer_mod(s->autoneg_timer, qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL)
> + 500);
>      }
> +
> +     if (val & 0x8000) {
> +         val &= 0x7fff;
> +         set_ics(s, 0, E1000_ICR_LSC);
> +     }
> +     s->phy_reg[PHY_CTRL] = val;
>  }
>
>  static void
> @@ -390,6 +396,8 @@
>      d->rxbuf_min_shift = 1;
>      memset(&d->tx, 0, sizeof d->tx);
>
> +    d->mac_reg[RA+0] = (macaddr[3] << 24) | (macaddr[2] << 16) |
> (macaddr[1] << 8) | macaddr[0];
> +    d->mac_reg[RA+1] = E1000_RAH_AV | (macaddr[5] << 8) | macaddr[4];
>      if (qemu_get_queue(d->nic)->link_down) {
>          e1000_link_down(d);
>      }
> @@ -409,6 +417,8 @@
>  {
>      /* RST is self clearing */
>      s->mac_reg[CTRL] = val & ~E1000_CTRL_RST;
> +    if (val & E1000_CTRL_RST)
> +       set_ics(s, 0, E1000_ICR_LSC);
>  }
>
>  static void
> @@ -446,7 +456,15 @@
>              if (addr < NPHYWRITEOPS && phyreg_writeops[addr]) {
>                  phyreg_writeops[addr](s, index, data);
>              }
> -            s->phy_reg[addr] = data;
> +            switch (addr) {
> +           case PHY_CTRL:
> +               s->phy_reg[addr] = data & 0x7eff;
> +               if (s->phy_reg[addr] != data)
> +                       set_ics(s, 0, E1000_ICR_LSC);
> +               break;
> +           default:
> +               s->phy_reg[addr] = data;
> +           }
>          }
>      }
>      s->mac_reg[MDIC] = val | E1000_MDIC_READY;
> @@ -1163,8 +1181,13 @@
>  static void
>  set_ims(E1000State *s, int index, uint32_t val)
>  {
> +    uint32_t old_val = s->mac_reg[IMS];
>      s->mac_reg[IMS] |= val;
> -    set_ics(s, 0, 0);
> +    if ((val & E1000_ICR_LSC) && old_val == 0) {
> +      set_ics(s, 0, E1000_ICR_LSC); /* inject Link Status for
> uncooperative Darwin driver */
> +    } else {
> +      set_ics(s, 0, 0);
> +    }
>  }
>
>  #define getreg(x)      [x] = mac_readreg
> @@ -1192,7 +1215,7 @@
>  static void (*macreg_writeops[])(E1000State *, int, uint32_t) = {
>      putreg(PBA),       putreg(EERD),   putreg(SWSM),   putreg(WUFC),
>      putreg(TDBAL),     putreg(TDBAH),  putreg(TXDCTL), putreg(RDBAH),
> -    putreg(RDBAL),     putreg(LEDCTL), putreg(VET),
> +    putreg(RDBAL),     putreg(LEDCTL), putreg(VET),    putreg(MANC),
>      [TDLEN] = set_dlen,        [RDLEN] = set_dlen,     [TCTL] = set_tctl,
>      [TDT] = set_tctl,  [MDIC] = set_mdic,      [ICS] = set_ics,
>      [TDH] = set_16bit, [RDH] = set_16bit,      [RDT] = set_rdt,
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>wrote:
>
>> Il 31/10/2013 00:54, jacek burghardt ha scritto:
>> > I wonder if anyone can post reworked patch to latest  qemu
>>
>> That's what I did 5 hours ago, though what I did was actually to look at
>> the bits affected by the patch and reimplement them based on the e1000
>> hardware spec.  Can you test the second patch I posted and see if it
>> works for you?
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>
>

Reply via email to