Hi,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 05:13:12PM +0900, Tomoyuki HIROSE wrote:
The previous code ignored 'impl.unaligned' and handled unaligned
accesses
as is. But this implementation cannot emulate specific registers of some
devices that allow unaligned access such as xHCI Host Controller
Capability
Registers.
This commit checks 'impl.unaligned' and if it is false, QEMU emulates
unaligned access with multiple aligned access.
This patch looks mostly good to me. Just a few trivial comments.
Firstly, can we provide the USB example here (or also the bug link) so
that
we can still pick up the context of why this will start to be useful when
people read about this commit separately?
Signed-off-by: Tomoyuki HIROSE <tomoyuki.hirose@igel.co.jp>
---
system/memory.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/system/memory.c b/system/memory.c
index a229a79988..a7ca0c9f54 100644
--- a/system/memory.c
+++ b/system/memory.c
@@ -535,10 +535,17 @@ static MemTxResult
access_with_adjusted_size(hwaddr addr,
MemTxAttrs attrs)
{
uint64_t access_mask;
+ unsigned access_mask_shift;
+ unsigned access_mask_start_offset;
+ unsigned access_mask_end_offset;
unsigned access_size;
- unsigned i;
MemTxResult r = MEMTX_OK;
bool reentrancy_guard_applied = false;
+ bool is_big_endian = memory_region_big_endian(mr);
+ signed start_diff;
+ signed current_offset;
+ signed access_shift;
+ hwaddr current_addr;
if (!access_size_min) {
access_size_min = 1;
@@ -560,19 +567,24 @@ static MemTxResult
access_with_adjusted_size(hwaddr addr,
reentrancy_guard_applied = true;
}
- /* FIXME: support unaligned access? */
access_size = MAX(MIN(size, access_size_max), access_size_min);
- access_mask = MAKE_64BIT_MASK(0, access_size * 8);
- if (memory_region_big_endian(mr)) {
- for (i = 0; i < size; i += access_size) {
- r |= access_fn(mr, addr + i, value, access_size,
- (size - access_size - i) * 8, access_mask,
attrs);
- }
- } else {
- for (i = 0; i < size; i += access_size) {
- r |= access_fn(mr, addr + i, value, access_size, i * 8,
- access_mask, attrs);
- }
+ start_diff = mr->ops->impl.unaligned ? 0 : addr & (access_size -
1);
+ current_addr = addr - start_diff;
+ for (current_offset = -start_diff; current_offset < (signed)size;
+ current_offset += access_size, current_addr += access_size) {
+ access_shift = is_big_endian
+ ? (signed)size - (signed)access_size -
current_offset
+ : current_offset;
+ access_mask_shift = current_offset > 0 ? 0 : -current_offset;
+ access_mask_start_offset = current_offset > 0 ?
current_offset : 0;
+ access_mask_end_offset = current_offset + access_size > size
+ ? size
+ : current_offset + access_size;
Maybe this looks slightly easier to read?
if (current_offset < 0) {
access_mask_shift = -current_offset;
access_mask_start_offset = 0;
} else {
access_mask_shift = 0;
access_mask_start_offset = current_offset;
}
access_mask_end_offset = MIN(current_offset + access_size,
size);
But I confess this can be pretty subjective..
Since PeterM used to comment, please remember to copy PeterM too in the
future post in case this got overlooked.
Peter, do you still have any other comments or concerns?