From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/9] eepro100: Fix endianness issues
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:52:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110331215253.GD27264@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301603611-7964-3-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de>
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:33:24PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Like other Intel devices, e100 (eepro100) uses little endian byte order.
>
> This patch was tested with these combinations:
>
> i386 host, i386 + mipsel guests (le-le)
> mipsel host, i386 guest (le-le)
> i386 host, mips + ppc guests (le-be)
> mips host, i386 guest (be-le)
>
> mips and mipsel hosts were emulated machines.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
> ---
> hw/eepro100.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/eepro100.c b/hw/eepro100.c
> index f89ff17..c789767 100644
> --- a/hw/eepro100.c
> +++ b/hw/eepro100.c
> @@ -20,11 +20,10 @@
> * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> *
> * Tested features (i82559):
> - * PXE boot (i386) ok
> + * PXE boot (i386 guest, i386 / mips / mipsel / ppc host) ok
> * Linux networking (i386) ok
> *
> * Untested:
> - * non-i386 platforms
> * Windows networking
> *
> * References:
> @@ -130,7 +129,7 @@ typedef struct {
>
> /* Offsets to the various registers.
> All accesses need not be longword aligned. */
> -enum speedo_offsets {
> +typedef enum {
> SCBStatus = 0, /* Status Word. */
> SCBAck = 1,
> SCBCmd = 2, /* Rx/Command Unit command and status. */
> @@ -145,7 +144,7 @@ enum speedo_offsets {
> SCBpmdr = 27, /* Power Management Driver. */
> SCBgctrl = 28, /* General Control. */
> SCBgstat = 29, /* General Status. */
> -};
> +} E100RegisterOffset;
>
> /* A speedo3 transmit buffer descriptor with two buffers... */
> typedef struct {
> @@ -307,7 +306,32 @@ static const uint16_t eepro100_mdi_mask[] = {
> 0xffff, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,
> };
>
> -/* XXX: optimize */
> +/* Read a 16 bit little endian value from physical memory. */
> +static uint16_t lduw_le_phys(target_phys_addr_t addr)
> +{
> + /* Load 16 bit (little endian) word from emulated hardware. */
> + uint16_t val;
> + cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, (uint8_t *)&val, sizeof(val));
> + return le16_to_cpu(val);
> +}
> +
> +/* Read a 32 bit little endian value from physical memory. */
> +static uint32_t ldl_le_phys(target_phys_addr_t addr)
> +{
> + /* Load 32 bit (little endian) word from emulated hardware. */
> + uint32_t val;
> + cpu_physical_memory_read(addr, (uint8_t *)&val, sizeof(val));
> + return le32_to_cpu(val);
> +}
> +
> +/* Write a 16 bit little endian value to physical memory. */
> +static void stw_le_phys(target_phys_addr_t addr, uint16_t val)
> +{
> + val = cpu_to_le16(val);
> + cpu_physical_memory_write(addr, (const uint8_t *)&val, sizeof(val));
> +}
> +
> +/* Write a 32 bit little endian value to physical memory. */
So why not opencode e.g.
le32_to_cpu(ldl_phys(addr))
wrappers really worth it? What do I miss?
If you insist on these online wrappers, pls prefix
them with eepro100_.
Also, why not use lduw_phys and friends internally?
cpu_physical_ is slower ...
> static void stl_le_phys(target_phys_addr_t addr, uint32_t val)
> {
> val = cpu_to_le32(val);
> @@ -339,6 +363,32 @@ static unsigned compute_mcast_idx(const uint8_t * ep)
> return (crc & BITS(7, 2)) >> 2;
> }
>
> +/* Read a 16 bit control/status (CSR) register. */
> +static uint16_t e100_read_reg2(EEPRO100State *s, E100RegisterOffset addr)
> +{
> + return le16_to_cpup((uint16_t *)&s->mem[addr]);
> +}
> +
> +/* Read a 32 bit control/status (CSR) register. */
> +static uint32_t e100_read_reg4(EEPRO100State *s, E100RegisterOffset addr)
> +{
> + return le32_to_cpup((uint32_t *)&s->mem[addr]);
> +}
> +
> +/* Write a 16 bit control/status (CSR) register. */
> +static void e100_write_reg2(EEPRO100State *s, E100RegisterOffset addr,
> + uint16_t val)
> +{
> + cpu_to_le16w((uint16_t *)&s->mem[addr], val);
> +}
> +
> +/* Read a 32 bit control/status (CSR) register. */
> +static void e100_write_reg4(EEPRO100State *s, E100RegisterOffset addr,
> + uint32_t val)
> +{
> + cpu_to_le32w((uint32_t *)&s->mem[addr], val);
> +}
> +
Note that cpu_to_le32w requires an aligned address, unlike
memcpy, and there's no guarantee
addr is aligned apparently?
If true you need to memcpy to a 32 bit variable, then
cpu_to_le32w ther result.
> #if defined(DEBUG_EEPRO100)
> static const char *nic_dump(const uint8_t * buf, unsigned size)
> {
> @@ -590,8 +640,7 @@ static void nic_selective_reset(EEPRO100State * s)
> TRACE(EEPROM, logout("checksum=0x%04x\n", eeprom_contents[EEPROM_SIZE - 1]));
>
> memset(s->mem, 0, sizeof(s->mem));
> - uint32_t val = BIT(21);
> - memcpy(&s->mem[SCBCtrlMDI], &val, sizeof(val));
> + e100_write_reg4(s, SCBCtrlMDI, BIT(21));
>
> assert(sizeof(s->mdimem) == sizeof(eepro100_mdi_default));
> memcpy(&s->mdimem[0], &eepro100_mdi_default[0], sizeof(s->mdimem));
> @@ -739,10 +788,10 @@ static void tx_command(EEPRO100State *s)
> }
> assert(tcb_bytes <= sizeof(buf));
> while (size < tcb_bytes) {
> - uint32_t tx_buffer_address = ldl_phys(tbd_address);
> - uint16_t tx_buffer_size = lduw_phys(tbd_address + 4);
> + uint32_t tx_buffer_address = ldl_le_phys(tbd_address);
> + uint16_t tx_buffer_size = lduw_le_phys(tbd_address + 4);
> #if 0
> - uint16_t tx_buffer_el = lduw_phys(tbd_address + 6);
> + uint16_t tx_buffer_el = lduw_le_phys(tbd_address + 6);
> #endif
> tbd_address += 8;
> TRACE(RXTX, logout
> @@ -761,9 +810,9 @@ static void tx_command(EEPRO100State *s)
> if (s->has_extended_tcb_support && !(s->configuration[6] & BIT(4))) {
> /* Extended Flexible TCB. */
> for (; tbd_count < 2; tbd_count++) {
> - uint32_t tx_buffer_address = ldl_phys(tbd_address);
> - uint16_t tx_buffer_size = lduw_phys(tbd_address + 4);
> - uint16_t tx_buffer_el = lduw_phys(tbd_address + 6);
> + uint32_t tx_buffer_address = ldl_le_phys(tbd_address);
> + uint16_t tx_buffer_size = lduw_le_phys(tbd_address + 4);
> + uint16_t tx_buffer_el = lduw_le_phys(tbd_address + 6);
> tbd_address += 8;
> TRACE(RXTX, logout
> ("TBD (extended flexible mode): buffer address 0x%08x, size 0x%04x\n",
> @@ -779,9 +828,9 @@ static void tx_command(EEPRO100State *s)
> }
> tbd_address = tbd_array;
> for (; tbd_count < s->tx.tbd_count; tbd_count++) {
> - uint32_t tx_buffer_address = ldl_phys(tbd_address);
> - uint16_t tx_buffer_size = lduw_phys(tbd_address + 4);
> - uint16_t tx_buffer_el = lduw_phys(tbd_address + 6);
> + uint32_t tx_buffer_address = ldl_le_phys(tbd_address);
> + uint16_t tx_buffer_size = lduw_le_phys(tbd_address + 4);
> + uint16_t tx_buffer_el = lduw_le_phys(tbd_address + 6);
> tbd_address += 8;
> TRACE(RXTX, logout
> ("TBD (flexible mode): buffer address 0x%08x, size 0x%04x\n",
> @@ -889,7 +938,7 @@ static void action_command(EEPRO100State *s)
> break;
> }
> /* Write new status. */
> - stw_phys(s->cb_address, s->tx.status | ok_status | STATUS_C);
> + stw_le_phys(s->cb_address, s->tx.status | ok_status | STATUS_C);
> if (bit_i) {
> /* CU completed action. */
> eepro100_cx_interrupt(s);
> @@ -1050,8 +1099,7 @@ static void eepro100_write_command(EEPRO100State * s, uint8_t val)
>
> static uint16_t eepro100_read_eeprom(EEPRO100State * s)
> {
> - uint16_t val;
> - memcpy(&val, &s->mem[SCBeeprom], sizeof(val));
> + uint16_t val = e100_read_reg4(s, SCBeeprom);
> if (eeprom93xx_read(s->eeprom)) {
> val |= EEPROM_DO;
> } else {
> @@ -1121,8 +1169,7 @@ static const char *reg2name(uint8_t reg)
>
> static uint32_t eepro100_read_mdi(EEPRO100State * s)
> {
> - uint32_t val;
> - memcpy(&val, &s->mem[0x10], sizeof(val));
> + uint32_t val = e100_read_reg4(s, SCBCtrlMDI);
>
> #ifdef DEBUG_EEPRO100
> uint8_t raiseint = (val & BIT(29)) >> 29;
> @@ -1231,7 +1278,7 @@ static void eepro100_write_mdi(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t val)
> }
> }
> val = (val & 0xffff0000) + data;
> - memcpy(&s->mem[0x10], &val, sizeof(val));
> + e100_write_reg4(s, SCBCtrlMDI, val);
> }
>
> /*****************************************************************************
> @@ -1258,7 +1305,6 @@ static uint32_t eepro100_read_port(EEPRO100State * s)
>
> static void eepro100_write_port(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t val)
> {
> - val = le32_to_cpu(val);
> uint32_t address = (val & ~PORT_SELECTION_MASK);
> uint8_t selection = (val & PORT_SELECTION_MASK);
> switch (selection) {
> @@ -1293,7 +1339,7 @@ static uint8_t eepro100_read1(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t addr)
> {
> uint8_t val = 0;
> if (addr <= sizeof(s->mem) - sizeof(val)) {
> - memcpy(&val, &s->mem[addr], sizeof(val));
> + val = s->mem[addr];
> }
>
> switch (addr) {
> @@ -1336,7 +1382,7 @@ static uint16_t eepro100_read2(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t addr)
> {
> uint16_t val = 0;
> if (addr <= sizeof(s->mem) - sizeof(val)) {
> - memcpy(&val, &s->mem[addr], sizeof(val));
> + val = e100_read_reg2(s, addr);
> }
>
> switch (addr) {
> @@ -1359,7 +1405,7 @@ static uint32_t eepro100_read4(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t addr)
> {
> uint32_t val = 0;
> if (addr <= sizeof(s->mem) - sizeof(val)) {
> - memcpy(&val, &s->mem[addr], sizeof(val));
> + val = e100_read_reg4(s, addr);
> }
>
> switch (addr) {
> @@ -1390,7 +1436,7 @@ static void eepro100_write1(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t addr, uint8_t val)
> {
> /* SCBStatus is readonly. */
> if (addr > SCBStatus && addr <= sizeof(s->mem) - sizeof(val)) {
> - memcpy(&s->mem[addr], &val, sizeof(val));
> + s->mem[addr] = val;
> }
>
> switch (addr) {
> @@ -1433,7 +1479,7 @@ static void eepro100_write2(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t addr, uint16_t val)
> {
> /* SCBStatus is readonly. */
> if (addr > SCBStatus && addr <= sizeof(s->mem) - sizeof(val)) {
> - memcpy(&s->mem[addr], &val, sizeof(val));
> + e100_write_reg2(s, addr, val);
> }
>
> switch (addr) {
> @@ -1460,7 +1506,7 @@ static void eepro100_write2(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t addr, uint16_t val)
> static void eepro100_write4(EEPRO100State * s, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val)
> {
> if (addr <= sizeof(s->mem) - sizeof(val)) {
> - memcpy(&s->mem[addr], &val, sizeof(val));
> + e100_write_reg4(s, addr, val);
> }
>
> switch (addr) {
> @@ -1753,9 +1799,10 @@ static ssize_t nic_receive(VLANClientState *nc, const uint8_t * buf, size_t size
> }
> TRACE(OTHER, logout("command 0x%04x, link 0x%08x, addr 0x%08x, size %u\n",
> rfd_command, rx.link, rx.rx_buf_addr, rfd_size));
> - stw_phys(s->ru_base + s->ru_offset + offsetof(eepro100_rx_t, status),
> - rfd_status);
> - stw_phys(s->ru_base + s->ru_offset + offsetof(eepro100_rx_t, count), size);
> + stw_le_phys(s->ru_base + s->ru_offset + offsetof(eepro100_rx_t, status),
> + rfd_status);
> + stw_le_phys(s->ru_base + s->ru_offset + offsetof(eepro100_rx_t, count),
> + size);
> /* Early receive interrupt not supported. */
> #if 0
> eepro100_er_interrupt(s);
> @@ -1884,7 +1931,7 @@ static int e100_nic_init(PCIDevice *pci_dev)
> /* Handler for memory-mapped I/O */
> s->mmio_index =
> cpu_register_io_memory(pci_mmio_read, pci_mmio_write, s,
> - DEVICE_NATIVE_ENDIAN);
> + DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN);
>
> pci_register_bar(&s->dev, 0, PCI_MEM_SIZE,
> PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_SPACE_MEMORY |
> --
> 1.7.2.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-31 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-31 20:33 [Qemu-devel] eepro100: Improve emulation and portability Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/9] eepro100: Avoid duplicate debug messages Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/9] eepro100: Fix endianness issues Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 21:52 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2011-04-01 17:52 ` [Qemu-devel] " Stefan Weil
2011-04-03 11:40 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/9] eepro100: Support byte/word writes to port address Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/9] eepro100: Support byte/word writes to pointer register Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/9] eepro100: Support byte/word read/write access to MDI control register Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/9] eepro100: Support byte read access to general " Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 7/9] eepro100: Support 32 bit read access to flash register Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/9] eepro100: Pad received short frames Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 21:41 ` [Qemu-devel] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-04-01 17:40 ` Stefan Weil
2011-03-31 20:33 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 9/9] eepro100: Simplify receive data structure Stefan Weil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110331215253.GD27264@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=weil@mail.berlios.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).