From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59090) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VPUs9-0002iY-AX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:02:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VPUs2-0002PR-EN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:02:05 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]:63860) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VPUs2-0002PM-A5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 06:01:58 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q4so1544936qcx.40 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <524557A6.903@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:02:14 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1343035544-11101-1-git-send-email-initcrash@gmail.com> <500D7BCA.9090409@weilnetz.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] eepro100: fix simplified mode List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: christian schilling Cc: Stefan Weil , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 24/07/2012 09:49, christian schilling ha scritto: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Am 23.07.2012 11:25, schrieb initcrash@gmail.com: >>> >>> A driver using simplified mode that works on real hardware >>> did not work in qemu. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian Schilling >>> --- >>> hw/eepro100.c | 7 +++++++ >>> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> >> >> >> Do you really think that's a trivial patch? > It's only three lines plus comments, but ok small != trivial. > >> >> I have a different fix for simplified mode in my QEMU tree: >> >> http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/ar7.git/blob/HEAD:/hw/eepro100.c >> >> That version is implemented according to the Intel specifications >> and avoids hacks for specific guest drivers. > My fix isn't a hack for a specific guest driver, but is also in > accordance with the > intel specs. > >> >> Maybe you can give it a try. > I have, it does work. > Overall the code look better to me, but one thing irritates me: > The comment on line 821 contradicts the trace on 830 and 833. > in fact i don't understand the code from 820 to 340. It seems to me it should > handle extended flexible TCBs, but if it does what does the code > following line 855 do? Anything new about this one-year-old patch? Paolo