On 2/10/26 1:04 AM, Aditya Gupta wrote:
> 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.
Sure. I'll add that in my next patch set.
Thanks,
Caleb
>
> Thanks,
> - Aditya G
>
>
