On 11/08/2011 04:07 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 2011/10/26 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>:
> > On 25 October 2011 12:09, Benoît Canet <benoit.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> +static const VMStateDescription vmstate_integratorcm = {
> >> + .name = "integratorcm",
> >> + .version_id = 1,
> >> + .minimum_version_id = 1,
> >> + .minimum_version_id_old = 1,
> >> + .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
> >> + VMSTATE_UINT32(memsz, integratorcm_state),
> >> + VMSTATE_BOOL(flash_mapped, integratorcm_state),
> >
> > This raises a question. flash_mapped here is a flag which just
> > tracks whether the associated MemoryRegion is currently mapped
> > or unmapped. Do we need to do anything special to ensure that
> > the MemoryRegion itself is reset to the correct mapped/unmapped
> > state on restore?
> >
> > I recall discussing this kind of thing with Avi on IRC but I
> > can't remember what the conclusion was.
>
> Avi, ping? I'm still interested in the answer to this question.
Sorry, missed this. Yes, you need to ensure the memory region mapping
reflects flash_mapped.
btw, is flash_mapped a real device state (corresponds to a real memory
bit on the device) or just an artefact? It's usually a bad idea to cast
implementation artefacts in vmstate concrete.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
