Re: Is the ppc440 "bamboo" board in QEMU still of any use?

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 14/10/2021 17.58, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 16:37, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 
>> On 14/10/2021 17.26, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 10/14/21 13:29, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/21 12:34, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have the following change in QEMU to be able to run the bamboo,
>>>>> found it some time ago via google (can't remember where):
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c
>>>>> index 8147ba6f94..600e89e791 100644
>>>>> --- a/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c
>>>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/ppc4xx_pci.c
>>>>> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ static int ppc4xx_pci_map_irq(PCIDevice *pci_dev,
>>>>> int irq_num)
>>>>>
>>>>>        trace_ppc4xx_pci_map_irq(pci_dev->devfn, irq_num, slot);
>>>>>
>>>>> -    return slot - 1;
>>>>> +    return slot ? slot - 1 : slot;
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>>    static void ppc4xx_pci_set_irq(void *opaque, int irq_num, int level)
>>>>
>>>> could you try to use :
>>>>
>>>> static inline int ppce500_pci_map_irq_slot(int devno, int irq_num)
>>>> {
>>>>      return (devno + irq_num) % 4;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Is this pci_swizzle()?
>>
>> It's pci_swizzle, but I don't think that we should take irq_num into 
>> account here. The comment right in front of the function says:
>>
>>   On Bamboo, all pins from each slot are tied to a single board IRQ
>>
>> Similar comment in pc-bios/bamboo.dts:
>>
>>   Bamboo has all 4 IRQ pins tied together per slot
>>
>> So the return value should only depend on the slot number.
>>
>> Not sure how to properly fix this yet, though.
>>
>>   Thomas
>>
>>
>> PS: Found a working pre-compiled kernel for bamboo:
>> http://landley.net/aboriginal/downloads/binaries/system-image-powerpc-440fp.tar.gz 
>>
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Did you see my reply from earlier today? Last time I checked the backtrace 
> from the assert() it was coming via pci_update_irq_disabled() although 
> that's not to say that something else could have changed since the original 
> thread.

Yes, I saw it ... it's just that I'm still in process of digesting the 
problem here .... I'll reply to that mail later, when I feel more confident 
with the topic...

  Thomas