Re: [RFC 05/10] hw/mos6522: Don't clear T1 interrupt flag on latch write

[Finn Thain]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, Laurent Vivier wrote:

> Le 26/08/2021 à 07:21, Finn Thain a écrit :
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2021, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> > 
> >> On 24/08/2021 11:09, Finn Thain wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Synertek datasheet says, "A write to T1L-H loads an 8-bit count value
> >>> into the latch. A read of T1L-H transfers the contents of the latch to
> >>> the data bus. Neither operation has an affect [sic] on the interrupt
> >>> flag."
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
> >>> ---
> >>>   hw/misc/mos6522.c | 1 -
> >>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/hw/misc/mos6522.c b/hw/misc/mos6522.c
> >>> index c0d6bee4cc..ffff8991f4 100644
> >>> --- a/hw/misc/mos6522.c
> >>> +++ b/hw/misc/mos6522.c
> >>> @@ -313,7 +313,6 @@ void mos6522_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, uint64_t
> >>> val, unsigned size)
> >>>           break;
> >>>       case VIA_REG_T1LH:
> >>>           s->timers[0].latch = (s->timers[0].latch & 0xff) | (val << 8);
> >>> -        s->ifr &= ~T1_INT;
> >>>           break;
> >>>       case VIA_REG_T2CL:
> >>>           s->timers[1].latch = (s->timers[1].latch & 0xff00) | val;
> >>
> >> Hmmm. The reference document I used for QEMU's 6522 device is at
> >> http://archive.6502.org/datasheets/mos_6522_preliminary_nov_1977.pdf and
> >> according to page 6 and the section "Writing the Timer 1 Registers" 
> >> writing to
> >> the high byte of the latch does indeed clear the T1 interrupt flag.
> >>
> >> Side note: there is reference in Gary Davidian's excellent CHM video that
> >> 6522s obtained from different manufacturers had different behaviours, and
> >> there are also web pages mentioning that 6522s integrated as part of other
> >> silicon e.g. IOSB/CUDA also had their own bugs... :/
> >>
> > 
> > The MOS document you've cited is much older than the Synertek and Rockwell 
> > devices. The datasheets for the Synertek and Rockwell parts disagree with 
> > MOS about T1LH behaviour. Apple certainly used SY6522 devices in my Mac II 
> > and I'd assumed Apple would have used compatible logic cores in the custom 
> > ICs found in later models. But I don't really trust assumptions and 
> > datasheets so I wrote the Linux patch below and ran it on my Quadra 630.
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/m68k/mac/via.c b/arch/m68k/mac/via.c
> > index 3d11d6219cdd..ed41f6ae2bf2 100644
> > --- a/arch/m68k/mac/via.c
> > +++ b/arch/m68k/mac/via.c
> > @@ -634,3 +634,27 @@ static u64 mac_read_clk(struct clocksource *cs)
> >  
> >     return ticks;
> >  }
> > +
> > +static int baz(void)
> > +{
> > +   u8 a, b, c;
> > +
> > +   local_irq_disable();
> > +
> > +   while (!(via1[vIFR] & VIA_TIMER_1_INT))
> > +           continue;
> > +   a = via1[vIFR] & VIA_TIMER_1_INT;
> > +   via1[vT1LH] = via1[vT1LH];
> > +   b = via1[vIFR] & VIA_TIMER_1_INT;
> > +   via1[vT1LL] = via1[vT1LL];
> > +   c = via1[vIFR] & VIA_TIMER_1_INT;
> > +
> > +   printk("a == %2x\n", a);
> > +   printk("b == %2x\n", b);
> > +   printk("c == %2x\n", c);
> > +
> > +   local_irq_enable();
> > +
> > +   return 0;
> > +}
> > +late_initcall(baz);
> > 
> > Based on the Synertek datasheet* one would expect to see b equal to a but 
> > I got this result instead:
> > 
> > [   10.450000] a == 40
> > [   10.450000] b ==  0
> > [   10.450000] c ==  0
> > 
> > This amounts to a MOS design flaw and I doubt that this result from my 
> > Quadra 630 would apply to other Mac models. So it would be great to see 
> > the output from a Quadra 800. But until then, let's disregard this patch.
> > 
> > * http://archive.6502.org/datasheets/synertek_sy6522.pdf
> > 
> 
> Tested on my Quadra 800:
> 
> [    4.730000] a == 40
> [    4.730000] b ==  0
> [    4.730000] c ==  0
> 

Much appreciated. I will drop this patch.