From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NxnXx-0008DN-Ar for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:32:53 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54953 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NxnXu-0008DC-3U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:32:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NxnXs-0005h7-N7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:32:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:44073) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NxnXs-0005go-Hs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:32:48 -0400 Received: by wwb28 with SMTP id 28so1524075wwb.4 for ; Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:32:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Artyom Tarasenko Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 22:32:26 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: 452efb didn't show up in the list List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel 2010/4/2 Blue Swirl : > On 4/1/10, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: >> 2010/4/1 Blue Swirl : >> =A0> Which list? >> >> =A0This mailing list? >> >> >> =A0> On 4/1/10, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: >> =A0>> and looks wrong or incomplete to me: >> =A0>> >> =A0>> =A0>According to Sun4M System Architecture Manual chapter 5.3.2, a= limit >> =A0>> =A0>of 0 will not generate interrupts. >> =A0>> >> =A0>> =A0This is indeed correct, but the chapter 5.3.2 also explains why= : >> =A0>> >> =A0>> =A0"Setting the limit register to =A00 =A0allows the counter to fr= ee run. Since the >> =A0>> =A0timer always resets to a value of 500 nS after reaching maximum= count, >> =A0>> =A0there is no match and no interrupts are generated." >> =A0>> >> =A0>> =A0The part about 500 nS (0x00000200 in the counter register) and >> =A0>> =A0no match seems to be not addressed. >> =A0> >> =A0> The 500ns offset part could be addressed by making the timer period >> =A0> shorter by 1 tick. I doubt such a change would have any visible >> =A0> difference with QEMU, except that tick count of 0 should never appe= ar >> =A0> in the counter but it may now. >> >> >> as well as all the other values between 0 and 0x200. But it's less >> =A0important I guess. >> >> >> =A0> For the no match part, t->reached should not be set if t->limit =3D= =3D 0. > > I think this patch would do what is expected. Looks good and passes my tests, thanks. Redefining LIMIT_TO_PERIODS is a really nice solution. --=20 Regards, Artyom Tarasenko solaris/sparc32 under qemu blog: http://tyom.blogspot.com/