From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52965)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>) id 1Z5gsw-00057s-0E
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:58:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>) id 1Z5gss-00006G-R9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:58:05 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]:33761)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>) id 1Z5gss-00006C-Ix
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:58:02 -0400
Received: by laka10 with SMTP id a10so62136394lak.0
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <558330D7.7000006@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:57:59 +0300
From: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1434554713-10220-1-git-send-email-serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA8=ET6kLWT_bo=vxuX+=oQCz+GYZ9uJhGMYELGh50Gkhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8=ET6kLWT_bo=vxuX+=oQCz+GYZ9uJhGMYELGh50Gkhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Do not reset sysregs marked as
	ALIAS
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 18.06.2015 23:46, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 June 2015 at 16:25, Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> cp_reg_reset() is called from g_hash_table_foreach() which does not
>> define a specific ordering of the hash table iteration. Thus doing reset
>> for registers marked as ALIAS would give an ambiguous result when
>> resetvalue is different for original and alias resisters.
> Was this actually the case for any of our registers? ie, is this
> patch fixing a bug, or just cleaning up a potential cause of
> confusion?

Peter, I discovered such a confusing behavior for PMCR register and
decided to sort this out.

>
>> Exit
>> cp_reg_reset() early when passed an alias register. Then clean up alias
>> register definitions from needless resetvalue and resetfn.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
> I've applied it to target-arm.next, but if this is fixing a bug
> it would be nice if I could update the commit message to say so.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM