From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LAoyx-0005gM-Dx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:05:47 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LAoyw-0005fk-BX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:05:47 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48137 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LAoyw-0005fY-57
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:05:46 -0500
Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.186]:5547)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1LAoyv-0008Ds-OQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:05:45 -0500
Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 56so988905rnw.8
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580812110905m2b734af4h7ab8fa8e95d317a9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:05:43 +0200
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] can anybody check ?
In-Reply-To: <200812080138.21206.wpecnik@tecwec.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200812080138.21206.wpecnik@tecwec.org>
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: wpecnik@tecwec.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 12/8/08, William PECNIK <wpecnik@tecwec.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>  Perhaps not the good way to report a "potential" bug, but i try ....
>  in hw/fdc.c in qemu-0.9.1.tar.gz line 768-781
>
>  static uint32_t fdctrl_read_dor (fdctrl_t *fdctrl)
>  {
>     uint32_t retval = 0;
>
>     /* Drive motors state indicators */
>     if (drv0(fdctrl)->drflags & FDRIVE_MOTOR_ON)
>         retval |= 1 << 5;
>     if (drv1(fdctrl)->drflags & FDRIVE_MOTOR_ON)
>         retval |= 1 << 4;
>     /* DMA enable */
>     retval |= fdctrl->dma_en << 3;
>     /* Reset indicator */
>     retval |= (fdctrl->state & FD_CTRL_RESET) == 0 ? 0x04 : 0;
>     /* Selected drive */
>     retval |= fdctrl->cur_drv;
>     FLOPPY_DPRINTF("digital output register: 0x%02x\n", retval);
>
>     return retval;
>  }
>
>  In my book PC Programming System edition CampuPress they say:
>  bit 7 r/w motor on drive 3
>  bit 6 r/w motor on drive 2
>  bit 5 r/w motor on drive 1
>  bit 4 r/w motor on drive 0,
>  ... for the port 0x3F2
>  and as i can see in source it is inverse , can anybody confirm ?

At least i82077AA and i82078 manuals describe the bits same way.