On 28/5/26 22:01, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
On 5/28/2026 12:56 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 28/5/26 21:40, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
On 5/27/2026 1:13 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Rather than adapting the array endianness when it it
filled, directly initialize the CODE words with the
correct endianness.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
---
hw/riscv/boot.c | 30 +++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
One could argue original version is more readable.
Any specific reason for rewriting things this way (performance, personal
preference, other)?
Not a blocker, just want to understand the original motivation.
Looking at the following changes, I think it makes more sense to
have the CODE section const little-endian, while the DATA section
is swapped. Otherwise we'd need 2 distinct loops.
In this case, having two distinct arrays, and two distinct loops might
be more clear IMHO.
The function is called only once, we can afford this.
This was my first approach until I realized this array is
registered with rom_add_blob_fixed_as().
We could register 2 distincts arrays, mrom.reset.code and
mrom.reset.rodata. Now than the patch is written & reviewed,
it sure it is worth it.
