On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 6 June 2015 at 00:18, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:09 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>> The pxa2xx-ssp device is already a QOM device but is still
>>> using the old-style register_savevm(); convert to VMState.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> hw/arm/pxa2xx.c | 89
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/pxa2xx.c b/hw/arm/pxa2xx.c
>>> index 770902f..09401f9 100644
>>> --- a/hw/arm/pxa2xx.c
>>> +++ b/hw/arm/pxa2xx.c
>>> @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ typedef struct {
>>>
>>> MemoryRegion iomem;
>>> qemu_irq irq;
>>> - int enable;
>>> + uint32_t enable;
>>> SSIBus *bus;
>>>
>>> uint32_t sscr[2];
>>> @@ -470,10 +470,39 @@ typedef struct {
>>> uint8_t ssacd;
>>>
>>> uint32_t rx_fifo[16];
>>> - int rx_level;
>>> - int rx_start;
>>> + uint32_t rx_level;
>>> + uint32_t rx_start;
>>> } PXA2xxSSPState;
>>>
>>> +static bool pxa2xx_ssp_vmstate_validate(void *opaque, int version_id)
>>> +{
>>> + PXA2xxSSPState *s = opaque;
>>> +
>>> + return s->rx_start < sizeof(s->rx_fifo);
>>
>> Does this need to be ARRAY_SIZE to account for unit32_t indexing?
>
> Yes, good catch.
>
Ok that's all I found. So otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com>
I assume this is intended to break backwards compat on the VMSD with
the conversion from put_byte loop to VMSTATE_UINT32_ARRAY? I'm not
sure what our policy is on these old ARM machines and preserving the
backwards compat.
Regards,
Peter
> -- PMM
>
