On 18 September 2017 at 14:27, sundeep subbaraya <sundeep.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:47 PM, sundeep subbaraya <sundeep.l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sundeep, Peter,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/15/2017 01:59 PM, Subbaraya Sundeep wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +static void msf2_sysreg_write(void *opaque, hwaddr offset,
>>>> + uint64_t val, unsigned size)
>>>> +{
>>>> + MSF2SysregState *s = opaque;
>>>> + uint32_t newval = val;
>>>> +
>>>> + offset >>= 2;
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (offset) {
>>>> + case MSSDDR_PLL_STATUS:
>>>> + trace_msf2_sysreg_write_pll_status();
>>>> + break;
>>>> +
>>>> + case ESRAM_CR:
>>>> + case DDR_CR:
>>>> + case ENVM_REMAP_BASE_CR:
>>>> + if (newval != s->regs[offset]) {
>>>> + qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP,
>>>> + TYPE_MSF2_SYSREG": remapping not supported\n");
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd rather exit here than continue with inconsistent cpu, Peter what do
>>> you recommend?
>
>
> Could you please suggest.
We shouldn't exit QEMU for something the guest can provoke. If
the functionality isn't implemented then just LOG_UNIMP it.
thanks
-- PMM
