This series aims to ease looking at the '-d unimp' output reported by the UnimplementedDevice. - read/write accesses are now aligned - the value format width uses the access size - the offset (address) uses the size of the memory region it belongs Series fully reviewed. Since v1: - Use DIV_ROUND_UP instead of ROUND_UP (rth) - Added rth R-b tags $ git backport-diff -u v1 -r origin/master.. Key: [----] : patches are identical [####] : number of functional differences between upstream/downstream patch [down] : patch is downstream-only The flags [FC] indicate (F)unctional and (C)ontextual differences, respectively 001/3:[----] [--] 'hw/misc/unimp: Display value after offset' 002/3:[----] [--] 'hw/misc/unimp: Display the value with width of the access size' 003/3:[0002] [FC] 'hw/misc/unimp: Display the offset with width of the region size' Philippe Mathieu-Daudé (3): hw/misc/unimp: Display value after offset hw/misc/unimp: Display the value with width of the access size hw/misc/unimp: Display the offset with width of the region size include/hw/misc/unimp.h | 1 + hw/misc/unimp.c | 14 ++++++++------ 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) -- 2.21.3
On 8/12/20 9:02 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > This series aims to ease looking at the '-d unimp' output reported > by the UnimplementedDevice. > > - read/write accesses are now aligned > - the value format width uses the access size > - the offset (address) uses the size of the memory region it belongs > > Series fully reviewed. ping?
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 21:02, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> wrote: > > On 8/12/20 9:02 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > This series aims to ease looking at the '-d unimp' output reported > > by the UnimplementedDevice. > > > > - read/write accesses are now aligned > > - the value format width uses the access size > > - the offset (address) uses the size of the memory region it belongs > > > > Series fully reviewed. > > ping? What tree were you expecting these to go in via? Probably worth being specific about who you're pinging in this kind of case ;-) -- PMM
Hi Peter, Le lun. 24 août 2020 17:01, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> a écrit : > On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 21:02, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> > wrote: > > > > On 8/12/20 9:02 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > > This series aims to ease looking at the '-d unimp' output reported > > > by the UnimplementedDevice. > > > > > > - read/write accesses are now aligned > > > - the value format width uses the access size > > > - the offset (address) uses the size of the memory region it belongs > > > > > > Series fully reviewed. > > > > ping? > > What tree were you expecting these to go in via? Probably worth > being specific about who you're pinging in this kind of case ;-) > Ok understood for the next time. In this case you are listed as maintainer :) Maybe you can Ack the series and then I'll ask to merge it via the trivial or misc trees. > -- PMM >
Le mer. 26 août 2020 11:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> a écrit : > Hi Peter, > > Le lun. 24 août 2020 17:01, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> a > écrit : > >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 21:02, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 8/12/20 9:02 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> > > This series aims to ease looking at the '-d unimp' output reported >> > > by the UnimplementedDevice. >> > > >> > > - read/write accesses are now aligned >> > > - the value format width uses the access size >> > > - the offset (address) uses the size of the memory region it belongs >> > > >> > > Series fully reviewed. >> > >> > ping? >> >> What tree were you expecting these to go in via? Probably worth >> being specific about who you're pinging in this kind of case ;-) >> > > Ok understood for the next time. In this case you are listed as maintainer > :) Maybe you can Ack the series and then I'll ask to merge it via the > trivial or misc trees. > I just realized qemu-trivial was correctly cc'ed. > >> -- PMM >> >
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org> wrote: >> What tree were you expecting these to go in via? Probably worth >> being specific about who you're pinging in this kind of case ;-) > > > Ok understood for the next time. In this case you are listed as > maintainer :) Oh, so I am, I had forgotten that :-) Anyway, I'll take it via the arm tree. My point was really just that if you're asking for something to be done it's useful to specify who you're asking if it's not completely obvious, because otherwise everybody's liable to assume somebody else will be dealing with it... thanks -- PMM
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.