On 04/11/2012 02:12 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 5 April 2012 16:48, Igor Mitsyanko<i.mitsya...@samsung.com> wrote:
@@ -536,8 +541,8 @@ static void sd_function_switch(SDState *sd, uint32_t arg)
static inline int sd_wp_addr(SDState *sd, uint32_t addr)
{
I've just noticed that it truncates addr to 32 bits... And test_bit()
and bitmap_new() takes int argument. Do we care about this?
- return sd->wp_groups[addr>>
- (HWBLOCK_SHIFT + SECTOR_SHIFT + WPGROUP_SHIFT)];
+ return test_bit(addr>> (HWBLOCK_SHIFT + SECTOR_SHIFT + WPGROUP_SHIFT),
+ sd->wp_groups);
Looking at how often the expression "addr>> (HWBLOCK_SHIFT +
SECTOR_SHIFT + WPGROUP_SHIFT)"
turns up in this file, I suspect that it would be helpful to have
a function
static uint32_t addr_to_wpnum(uint64_t addr) {
return addr>> (HWBLOCK_SHIFT + SECTOR_SHIFT + WPGROUP_SHIFT);
}
This implicitly limits max address to 0xFFFFFFFF << (HWBLOCK_SHIFT +
SECTOR_SHIFT + WPGROUP_SHIFT), have you done this on purpose?
But that should be in a separate patch, and it's optional.
OK, I like it.
}
static void sd_lock_command(SDState *sd)
@@ -560,8 +565,8 @@ static void sd_lock_command(SDState *sd)
sd->card_status |= LOCK_UNLOCK_FAILED;
return;
}
- memset(sd->wp_groups, 0, sizeof(int) * (sd->size>>
- (HWBLOCK_SHIFT + SECTOR_SHIFT + WPGROUP_SHIFT)));
+ bitmap_zero(sd->wp_groups, BITS_TO_LONGS((sd->size>> (HWBLOCK_SHIFT +
+ SECTOR_SHIFT + WPGROUP_SHIFT)) + 1));
This is wrong -- bitmap_zero() takes a bit count, so you don't need
to do BITS_TO_LONGS. Also where has the + 1 come from?
Will fix it.
Otherwise looks good.
-- PMM
--
Mitsyanko Igor
ASWG, Moscow R&D center, Samsung Electronics
email: i.mitsya...@samsung.com
