Hello Caleb, Was going through the patch again. Can we add a comment doc, about the scoms for which the unimplemented warning is getting hidden ?
On 26/01/26 07:55AM, Caleb Schlossin wrote: > <...snip...> > > @@ -284,6 +305,15 @@ static void pnv_core_power10_xscom_write(void *opaque, > hwaddr addr, > } > break; > > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_IMA_EVENT_MASK: > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_CORE_FIRMASK: > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_CORE_FIRMASK_OR: > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_CORE_FIRMASK_AND: > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_SPATTN_OR: > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_SPATTN_AND: > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_SPATTN: > + case PNV10_XSCOM_EC_SPATTN_MASK: > + break; > default: > qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "%s: unimp write 0x%08x\n", __func__, Here, the unimp warning is getting skipped, by ignoring writes to those scoms. Similarly in other places, you return 0 as default value for few scom reads. A comment about the special treatment will help future developers to read the code. Thanks, - Aditya G
