From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58920) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1etsko-0008Gi-C7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 05:26:31 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1etskj-00004w-F7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 05:26:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:26:17 +0100 (CET) From: BALATON Zoltan In-Reply-To: <20180308061707.GP3083@umbus.fritz.box> Message-ID: References: <20180307205427.3A2877456C6@zero.eik.bme.hu> <20180308061707.GP3083@umbus.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ppc440_pcix: Add dummy implementation of BRDGOPT registers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Gibson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Thomas Huth On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:43:59PM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote: >> I don't know what should be the correct implementation for these so >> these are just stored and returned as is without doing anything for >> now only to silence warnings when u-boot accesses these registers. >> >> Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan > > I'm a bit dubious about putting in a dummy register implementation. > Specifically, I think the case needs to be made that the dummy > implementation is preferable to just putting up with the test errors. > > At the very least there should be a comment in the code indicating > that it's just a dummy stub implementation. Let's go with changing the error_report to qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, ...) as suggested by Thomas instead. I'll send another patch. Regards, BALATON Zoltan