Post-unfreeze ping! (patches still apply OK) thanks -- PMM
On 21 January 2013 14:08, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > While I was looking at the implicit-fallthrough in pflash_cfi02, > I noticed that the code in pflash_cfi01 was different and wrong. > Specifically, the cfi01 code is attempting to do the same "fall > through to treat as a normal read" trick, but somebody has moved > the default case so it's no longer above the thing it wants to > fall through to. Patch 2 corrects this. > > Patch 1 fixes a bug which was the only way you could get into the > default case in the first place: this default is a "can't happen" > case which implies that the pflash_read() switch is missing > handling code for a command which is implemented in pflash_write(). > In fact for cfi01 there were some missing cases, so we add them, > based on the spec which defines what the read should return for > these commands, which is the status register value in all cases. > > [The patch order is merely so that by the time we get to patch 2 > it is a "does not change user visible behaviour" change.] > > > Peter Maydell (2): > hw/pflash_cfi01: Make read after byte-write or erase return status > hw/pflash_cfi01: Treat read in unknown command state as read > > hw/pflash_cfi01.c | 14 +++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
