On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
>
> The PCI_ADDR() macro use generic PCI fields shifted by 8-bit.
> Rewrite it extracting the shift operation one layer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
> ---
> hw/pci-host/bonito.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/pci-host/bonito.c b/hw/pci-host/bonito.c
> index a99eced0657..abb3ee86769 100644
> --- a/hw/pci-host/bonito.c
> +++ b/hw/pci-host/bonito.c
> @@ -196,8 +196,8 @@ FIELD(BONGENCFG, PCIQUEUE,      12, 1)
> #define PCI_IDSEL_VIA686B          (1 << PCI_IDSEL_VIA686B_BIT)
>
> #define PCI_ADDR(busno , devno , funno , regno)  \
> -    ((((busno) << 16) & 0xff0000) + (((devno) << 11) & 0xf800) + \
> -    (((funno) << 8) & 0x700) + (regno))
> +    ((((busno) << 8) & 0xff00) + (((devno) << 3) & 0xf8) + \
> +    (((funno) & 0x7) << 8) + (regno))

Are you missing a << 8 somewhere before + (regno) or both of these are 
equally unreadable and I've missed something? This seems to be completely 
replaced by next patch so what's the point of this change?

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan

>
> typedef struct BonitoState BonitoState;
>
>