qemu-arm
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] hw/arm/raspi: Add thermal/timer, improve address sp


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] hw/arm/raspi: Add thermal/timer, improve address space, run U-boot
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:49:39 +0100

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 14:46, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/19 3:42 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 00:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> Since v2:
> >> - fixed issue in videocore address space
> >> - allow to start with some cores OFF (to boot firmwares)
> >> - add proof-of-concept test for '-smp cores=1' and U-boot
> >> - fixed my email setup
> >>
> >> Previous cover:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Some patches from v1 are already merged. This v2 addresses the
> >> review comment from v1, and add patches to clean the memory
> >> space when using multiple cores.
> >>
> >> Laurent, if you test U-Boot with this patchset again, do you mind
> >> replying with a "Tested-by:" tag?
> >>
> >> The next patchset is probably about the interrupt controller blocks,
> >> then will come another one about the MBox/Properties.
> >>
> >> The last patch is unrelated to the series, but since I cleaned this
> >> for the raspi and the highbank is the only board with the same issue,
> >> I included the patch in this series.
> >
> > I'm going to apply 1-10 and 14 to target-arm.next.
> > (I've reviewed 10, and the rest have been reviewed.)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Do you mind amending this to patch #3
> "hw/timer/bcm2835: Add the BCM2835 SYS_timer"
> or should I respin (or resend it alone)?
>
> -- >8 --
> diff --git a/hw/timer/bcm2835_systmr.c b/hw/timer/bcm2835_systmr.c
> index 49b40b55f9..3387a6214a 100644
> --- a/hw/timer/bcm2835_systmr.c
> +++ b/hw/timer/bcm2835_systmr.c
> @@ -115,10 +115,7 @@ static void bcm2835_systmr_reset(DeviceState *dev)
>   {
>       BCM2835SystemTimerState *s = BCM2835_SYSTIMER(dev);
>
> -    s->reg.status = 0;
> -    for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(s->reg.compare); i++) {
> -        s->reg.compare[i] = 0;
> -    }
> +    memset(&s->reg, 0, sizeof(s->reg));
>   }
>

Sure, I'll just squash that in.

-- PMM



reply via email to

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