Am 26. April 2023 11:37:48 UTC schrieb Mark Cave-Ayland
<mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk>:
>On 22/04/2023 16:07, Bernhard Beschow wrote:
>
>> Now that PCIIDEState::{cmd,data}_ops are initialized in the base class
>> constructor there is an opportunity for PIIX to reuse these attributes. This
>> resolves usage of ide_init_ioport() which would fall back internally to using
>> the isabus global due to NULL being passed as ISADevice by PIIX.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Beschow <shen...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> hw/ide/piix.c | 30 +++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/ide/piix.c b/hw/ide/piix.c
>> index a3a15dc7db..406a67fa0f 100644
>> --- a/hw/ide/piix.c
>> +++ b/hw/ide/piix.c
>> @@ -104,34 +104,32 @@ static void piix_ide_reset(DeviceState *dev)
>> pci_set_byte(pci_conf + 0x20, 0x01); /* BMIBA: 20-23h */
>> }
>> -static bool pci_piix_init_bus(PCIIDEState *d, unsigned i, ISABus *isa_bus,
>> - Error **errp)
>> +static void pci_piix_init_bus(PCIIDEState *d, unsigned i, ISABus *isa_bus)
>> {
>> static const struct {
>> int iobase;
>> int iobase2;
>> int isairq;
>> } port_info[] = {
>> - {0x1f0, 0x3f6, 14},
>> - {0x170, 0x376, 15},
>> + {0x1f0, 0x3f4, 14},
>> + {0x170, 0x374, 15},
>> };
>> - int ret;
>> + MemoryRegion *address_space_io = pci_address_space_io(PCI_DEVICE(d));
>> ide_bus_init(&d->bus[i], sizeof(d->bus[i]), DEVICE(d), i, 2);
>> - ret = ide_init_ioport(&d->bus[i], NULL, port_info[i].iobase,
>> - port_info[i].iobase2);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - error_setg_errno(errp, -ret, "Failed to realize %s port %u",
>> - object_get_typename(OBJECT(d)), i);
>> - return false;
>> - }
>> + memory_region_add_subregion(address_space_io, port_info[i].iobase,
>> + &d->data_ops[i]);
>> + /*
>> + * PIIX forwards the last byte of cmd_ops to ISA. Model this using a low
>> + * prio so competing memory regions take precedence.
>> + */
>> + memory_region_add_subregion_overlap(address_space_io,
>> port_info[i].iobase2,
>> + &d->cmd_ops[i], -1);
>
>Interesting. Is this behaviour documented somewhere and/or used in one of your
>test images at all? If I'd have seen this myself, I probably thought that the
>addresses were a typo...
I first stumbled upon this and wondered why this code was working with VIA_IDE
(through my pc-via branch). Then I found the correct offsets there which are
confirmed in the piix datasheet, e.g.: "Secondary Control Block Offset: 0374h"
>
>> ide_bus_init_output_irq(&d->bus[i],
>> isa_bus_get_irq(isa_bus, port_info[i].isairq));
>> bmdma_init(&d->bus[i], &d->bmdma[i], d);
>> ide_bus_register_restart_cb(&d->bus[i]);
>> -
>> - return true;
>> }
>> static void pci_piix_ide_realize(PCIDevice *dev, Error **errp)
>> @@ -160,9 +158,7 @@ static void pci_piix_ide_realize(PCIDevice *dev, Error
>> **errp)
>> }
>> for (unsigned i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
>> - if (!pci_piix_init_bus(d, i, isa_bus, errp)) {
>> - return;
>> - }
>> + pci_piix_init_bus(d, i, isa_bus);
>> }
>> }
>>
>
>
>ATB,
>
>Mark.
