Re: [PULL 22/49] hw/pci-host/raven.c: Mark raven_io_ops as implementing unaligned accesses

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 14:53, Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/19/24 15:49, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> The raven_io_ops MemoryRegionOps is the only one in the source tree
> >> which sets .valid.unaligned to indicate that it should support
> >> unaligned accesses and which does not also set .impl.unaligned to
> >> indicate that its read and write functions can do the unaligned
> >> handling themselves.  This is a problem, because at the moment the
> >> core memory system does not implement the support for handling
> >> unaligned accesses by doing a series of aligned accesses and
> >> combining them (system/memory.c:access_with_adjusted_size() has a
> >> TODO comment noting this).
> >>
> >> Fortunately raven_io_read() and raven_io_write() will correctly deal
> >> with the case of being passed an unaligned address, so we can fix the
> >> missing unaligned access support by setting .impl.unaligned in the
> >> MemoryRegionOps struct.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 9a1839164c9c8f06 ("raven: Implement non-contiguous I/O region")
> >> Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
> >> Tested-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> >
> > Hm, this seems to be missing the actual patch.
>
> It's merged already and git knows how to handle this.

Mmm, though this is the result of "rebased onto a tree that
already had the commit" rather than "two merges both contain
the commit", so we end up with a genuinely empty commit upstream,
which is a bit odd looking, though harmless.

-- PMM