From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Nz9qf-00061b-IE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:33:49 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46205 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nz9qe-00061P-Ap
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:33:49 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Nz9qb-0006gX-QY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:33:47 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12345)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1Nz9qb-0006gS-Ix
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:33:45 -0400
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:30:03 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100406143003.GB20325@redhat.com>
References: <1270554249-24861-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
	<1270554249-24861-9-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
	<20100406115752.GB16539@redhat.com>
	<4BBB43ED.1080109@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BBB43ED.1080109@mail.berlios.de>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 8/9] eepro100: Fix mapping of flash memory
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:23:41PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin schrieb:
> > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:44:08PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> >   
> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
> >> ---
> >>  hw/eepro100.c |    5 +++--
> >>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/eepro100.c b/hw/eepro100.c
> >> index f0acdbc..2401888 100644
> >> --- a/hw/eepro100.c
> >> +++ b/hw/eepro100.c
> >> @@ -1622,8 +1622,9 @@ static void pci_mmio_map(PCIDevice * pci_dev, int region_num,
> >>            "size=0x%08"FMT_PCIBUS", type=%d\n",
> >>            region_num, addr, size, type));
> >>  
> >> -    if (region_num == 0) {
> >> -        /* Map control / status registers. */
> >> +    assert(region_num == 0 || region_num == 2);
> >> +    if (region_num == 0 || region_num == 2) {
> >>     
> >
> > Looks a bit strange ...  Why do we need the if here?
> >   
> 
> It is not needed if everything works as it should.
> 
> For compilations without NDEBUG, assert will catch
> a wrong region_num anyway.
> 
> If code is compiled with NDEBUG, the assert does
> nothing, so the if is an additional guard.

We don't need the guard though: the only way to get
non 0 and non 2 region is because of a bug in code.
So the check is just a debugging aid.

> >   
> >> +        /* Map control / status registers and flash. */
> >>          cpu_register_physical_memory(addr, size, s->mmio_index);
> >>          s->region[region_num] = addr;
> >>      }
> >> -- 
> >> 1.7.0
> >>