Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 2/21/19 10:38 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Double-checking... you want me to keep goto reset_flash, like this:
>>>
>>> @@ -623,8 +617,8 @@ static void pflash_write(PFlashCFI01 *pfl, hwaddr
>>> offset,
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
>
>> On 2/21/19 10:38 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Double-checking... you want me to keep goto reset_flash, like this:
@@ -623,8 +617,8 @@ static void
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé writes:
> On 2/21/19 10:38 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Double-checking... you want me to keep goto reset_flash, like this:
>>>
>>> @@ -623,8 +617,8 @@ static void pflash_write(PFlashCFI01 *pfl, hwaddr
>>> offset,
On 02/21/19 17:39, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 2/21/19 1:46 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 02/21/19 13:38, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
since we're talking "reset_flash", I'll note that there is no actual
reset handler for
On 2/21/19 1:46 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/21/19 13:38, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> since we're talking "reset_flash", I'll note that there is no actual
>>> reset handler for cfi.pflash01. I found out recently, via:
>>>
>>>
On 2/21/19 10:38 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Double-checking... you want me to keep goto reset_flash, like this:
>>
>> @@ -623,8 +617,8 @@ static void pflash_write(PFlashCFI01 *pfl, hwaddr offset,
>> pfl->wcycle = 0;
>>
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Markus Armbruster writes:
>
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
>>> wrote:
On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
>
On 02/21/19 13:38, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> since we're talking "reset_flash", I'll note that there is no actual
>> reset handler for cfi.pflash01. I found out recently, via:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678713
>
> Yes;
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 12:07, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> since we're talking "reset_flash", I'll note that there is no actual
> reset handler for cfi.pflash01. I found out recently, via:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678713
Yes; this isn't uncommon for some of the really old
device
somewhat off-topic:
On 02/21/19 10:38, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Double-checking... you want me to keep goto reset_flash, like this:
>>
>> @@ -623,8 +617,8 @@ static void pflash_write(PFlashCFI01 *pfl, hwaddr offset,
>>
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 09:22, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Double-checking... you want me to keep goto reset_flash, like this:
>
> @@ -623,8 +617,8 @@ static void pflash_write(PFlashCFI01 *pfl, hwaddr offset,
> pfl->wcycle = 0;
> pfl->status |= 0x80;
>
Markus Armbruster writes:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> > PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
>>> > BUG", which sounds like a warning, then
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> > PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
>> > BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by
>> >
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 12:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>
> On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
> > BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by
> > unreachable goto reset_flash. All this
On 2/18/19 1:56 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
> BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by
> unreachable goto reset_flash. All this commit does is expanding the
> macro, so the smell becomes more
Laszlo Ersek writes:
> On 02/18/19 13:56, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
>> BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by
>> unreachable goto reset_flash. All this commit does is expanding the
>> macro, so the
On 02/18/19 13:56, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
> BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by
> unreachable goto reset_flash. All this commit does is expanding the
> macro, so the smell becomes more poignant,
PFLASH_BUG()'s lone use has a suspicious smell: it prints "Possible
BUG", which sounds like a warning, then calls exit(1), followed by
unreachable goto reset_flash. All this commit does is expanding the
macro, so the smell becomes more poignant, and the macro can be
deleted.
Signed-off-by:
18 matches
Mail list logo
