On 24/08/2021 11:09, Finn Thain wrote:
It necessary to call mos6522_update_irq() when the interrupt flags
change and unnecessary when they haven't.
Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fth...@linux-m68k.org>
---
hw/misc/mos6522.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/hw/misc/mos6522.c b/hw/misc/mos6522.c
index 0a241fe9f8..0dd3ccf945 100644
--- a/hw/misc/mos6522.c
+++ b/hw/misc/mos6522.c
@@ -208,11 +208,13 @@ uint64_t mos6522_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, unsigned
size)
s->timers[0].oneshot_fired = true;
mos6522_timer1_update(s, &s->timers[0], now);
s->ifr |= T1_INT;
+ mos6522_update_irq(s);
}
if (now >= s->timers[1].next_irq_time) {
s->timers[1].oneshot_fired = true;
mos6522_timer2_update(s, &s->timers[1], now);
s->ifr |= T2_INT;
+ mos6522_update_irq(s);
}
Again this seems to be in the block of code I'm not sure is correct, so my first
instinct is to see if removing it helps first - although the patch logically seems
correct.
switch (addr) {
case VIA_REG_B:
@@ -237,7 +239,6 @@ uint64_t mos6522_read(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, unsigned
size)
break;
case VIA_REG_T1CH:
val = get_counter(s, &s->timers[0]) >> 8;
- mos6522_update_irq(s);
As get_counter() simply generates the current counter value I'd say this part
is correct.
break;
case VIA_REG_T1LL:
val = s->timers[0].latch & 0xff;
ATB,
Mark.
