From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWfEJ-0001u7-LC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:58:51 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWfEH-0001rx-Oh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:58:50 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWfEH-0001ru-ML
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:58:49 -0500
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <SRS0=ilXw=JA=mail.berlios.de=weil@srs.kundenserver.de>)
	id 1HWfBl-0004Em-Jn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:56:14 -0400
Message-ID: <460AD667.8070608@mail.berlios.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:56:07 +0200
From: Stefan Weil <weil@mail.berlios.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch] More PCI ethernet emulations
References: <33328190.1174979798015.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml08.mgt.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <33328190.1174979798015.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml08.mgt.cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: sol10x86@cox.net, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Good question. I stumbled about this, too, when I looked
at the code how I could apply your patch. Some months
had past since I wrote it :-)

The code writes to a serial EEPROM, so the 16 bits are
sent using only a clock and a single data bit. The
EEPROM emulation then takes the single bits and puts
them together.

The function gets a byte which contains clock, data and
two other significant bits, and 4 bits which are always 0.

When called with a word, only one byte is needed.
Maybe it is the wrong one - if you work with different
endianess.

I'l have a look at the other problems next weekend.

Stefan

Ben Taylor wrote:
> I have a question. in eepro100_write2, I see a word (16-bits) being
> passed in, but only the low part of the word gets written to the eeprom.
> Since it's a word write, shouldn't it be writing both bytes to the eeprom?
>
> Ben