From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47542) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGpa0-0002Qc-43 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2018 13:42:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGpZy-0008ET-Qu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2018 13:42:12 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::244]:42378) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGpZy-0008Dz-JJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2018 13:42:10 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-x244.google.com with SMTP id b18-v6so3445061lfa.9 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 10:42:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <025447ec-d2af-4f92-9cc0-6f59877e617a@amsat.org> References: <20180509034658.26455-1-f4bug@amsat.org> <20180509034658.26455-5-f4bug@amsat.org> <025447ec-d2af-4f92-9cc0-6f59877e617a@amsat.org> From: Alistair Francis Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:41:38 -0700 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 04/14] sdcard: Extract sd_frame48/136_calc_checksum() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= Cc: Peter Maydell , "Edgar E . Iglesias" , Paolo Bonzini , Alistair Francis , Stefan Hajnoczi , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > On 05/09/2018 08:04 PM, Alistair Francis wrote: >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >>> Hi Alistair, >>> >>> On 05/09/2018 03:00 PM, Alistair Francis wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >>>>> It will help when moving this around for qtesting in the next commit. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 >>>>> --- >>>>> hw/sd/sd.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- >>>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/sd/sd.c b/hw/sd/sd.c >>>>> index 27a70896cd..06607115a7 100644 >>>>> --- a/hw/sd/sd.c >>>>> +++ b/hw/sd/sd.c >>>>> @@ -273,6 +273,21 @@ static uint16_t sd_crc16(const void *message, si= ze_t width) >>>>> return shift_reg; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> +enum { >>>>> + F48_CONTENT_LENGTH =3D 1 /* command */ + 4 /* argument */, >>>>> + F136_CONTENT_LENGTH =3D 15, >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +static uint8_t sd_frame48_calc_checksum(const void *content) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + return sd_crc7(content, F48_CONTENT_LENGTH); >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +static uint8_t sd_frame136_calc_checksum(const void *content) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + return (sd_crc7(content, F136_CONTENT_LENGTH) << 1) | 1; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> #define OCR_POWER_DELAY_NS 500000 /* 0.5ms */ >>>>> >>>>> FIELD(OCR, VDD_VOLTAGE_WINDOW, 0, 24) >>>>> @@ -352,7 +367,7 @@ static void sd_set_cid(SDState *sd) >>>>> sd->cid[13] =3D 0x00 | /* Manufacture date (MDT) */ >>>>> ((MDT_YR - 2000) / 10); >>>>> sd->cid[14] =3D ((MDT_YR % 10) << 4) | MDT_MON; >>>>> - sd->cid[15] =3D (sd_crc7(sd->cid, 15) << 1) | 1; >>>>> + sd->cid[15] =3D sd_frame136_calc_checksum(sd->cid); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> #define HWBLOCK_SHIFT 9 /* 512 bytes */ >>>>> @@ -416,7 +431,7 @@ static void sd_set_csd(SDState *sd, uint64_t size= ) >>>>> sd->csd[13] =3D 0x40; >>>>> sd->csd[14] =3D 0x00; >>>>> } >>>>> - sd->csd[15] =3D (sd_crc7(sd->csd, 15) << 1) | 1; >>>>> + sd->csd[15] =3D sd_frame136_calc_checksum(sd->csd); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> static void sd_set_rca(SDState *sd) >>>>> @@ -491,7 +506,7 @@ static int sd_req_crc_validate(SDRequest *req) >>>>> buffer[0] =3D 0x40 | req->cmd; >>>>> stl_be_p(&buffer[1], req->arg); >>>>> return 0; >>>>> - return sd_crc7(buffer, 5) !=3D req->crc; /* TODO */ >>>>> + return sd_frame48_calc_checksum(buffer) !=3D req->crc; /* TODO *= / >>>> >>>> This 5 has changed to a 15. Is that on purpose? It should be mentioned >>>> in the commit message if it is. >>> >>> I just extracted this function: >>> >>> static uint8_t sd_frame48_calc_checksum(const void *content) >>> { >>> return sd_crc7(content, F48_CONTENT_LENGTH); >>> } >>> >>> Having: >>> >>> enum { >>> F48_CONTENT_LENGTH =3D 1 /* command */ + 4 /* argument */, >>> >>> So F48_CONTENT_LENGTH =3D 5 as previous. >> >> Ah, I missed the '+ 4 '. I just stopped reading at the comment. > > This way looked clearer to me, but it might not be... > Would this be clearer? > > F48_CONTENT_LENGTH =3D 1 + 4 /* command + argument */, I think this is clearer, but the way you have it now is fine as well. > >> >> Looks good then: >> >> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis > > Thanks for your review time :) No worries :) Alistair > >> >> Alistair >> >>> >>> This function is later verified with tests from patch 12 of this series= . >>> >>>> >>>> Alistair >>>> >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> static void sd_response_r1_make(SDState *sd, uint8_t *response) >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.17.0 >>>>> >>>>>