gilles grimaud <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for the review. I have looked at the impact of these comments, and > for v3 I propose to: > > * split the current patch into two focused patches: one for SYSINFO and one > for SYSCFG;
Yes > * remove the powered-off memory overlays. They were intended to make CPU > and DMA accesses fail after setting MEMPOWERDOWN, but this goes beyond the > documented register behavior; > * retain the documented MEMPOWERDOWN register state, reset value, and write > mask, without claiming to model physical ROM or SRAM power gating; So is this modelling individual cores power states? I'm still a bit confused as to what in the model will be accessing them when the cores are down. > * route PROC0_NMI_MASK and PROC1_NMI_MASK independently to the corresponding > core; > * remove the MemoryRegionOps.with_attrs callbacks, since they are only > needed by the powered-off memory overlays; My preference would be the other way. The with_attr callbacks allow for richer memory modelling. Indeed if you really wanted to model powerdown state you could keep the same accessor and return MEMTX_ACCESS in the main implementation without needing an overlay. > * remove the per-subsystem RP2040 Kconfig symbols and build the internal > devices under the single CONFIG_RP2040 symbol. > > I will add focused qtests to the separate SYSINFO and SYSCFG patches. > > Does this sound in the right direction? > > Thanks, -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
