- patch for bug #468340: pic:slave: OCW3 not implemented.

The service_master_pic() method supported special mask mode but
  service_slave_pic() did not.  I added the code to service_slave_pic().  I
  have no clear way to test that this is actually working right.  If I can put
  a gdb breakpoint in the pic.cc code and then step through and watch it work,
  I'll be more confident.
This commit is contained in:
Bryce Denney 2001-11-11 00:43:52 +00:00
parent b4aa45671b
commit 30abf51d43
1 changed files with 70 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Patch name: patch.pic-slave-special-mask
Author: Bryce Denney <bryce@tlw.com>
Date: Sat Nov 10 19:36:46 EST 2001
RCS Id: $Id: patch.pic-slave-special-mask,v 1.1 2001-11-11 00:43:52 bdenney Exp $
Detailed description:
The service_master_pic() method supported special mask mode but
service_slave_pic() did not. I added the code to service_slave_pic(). I have
no clear way to test that this is actually working right. If I can put a gdb
breakpoint in the pic.cc code and then step through and watch it work, I'll be
more confident.
Patch was created with:
cvs diff -u
Apply patch to what version:
cvs checked out on DATE, release version VER
Instructions:
To patch, go to main bochs directory.
Type "patch -p0 < THIS_PATCH_FILE".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Index: iodev/pic.cc
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/bochs/bochs/iodev/pic.cc,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -r1.12 pic.cc
--- iodev/pic.cc 2001/10/03 13:10:38 1.12
+++ iodev/pic.cc 2001/11/11 00:41:45
@@ -400,8 +400,7 @@
else if (special_mask == 0x03) { /* set specific mask */
BX_PIC_THIS s.slave_pic.special_mask = 1;
service_slave_pic();
- BX_ERROR(("slave: OCW3 not implemented (%02x)",
- (unsigned) value));
+ BX_ERROR(("Congratulations, you found a test case for bug [ #468340 ] pic:slave: OCW3 not implemented. The bug has been fixed, but Bryce needs a way to test it. Please report exactly how you got to this point. It is perfectly safe to continue."));
}
return;
}
@@ -625,6 +624,13 @@
return;
}
+ if (BX_PIC_THIS s.master_pic.special_mask) {
+ /* all priorities may be enabled. check all IRR bits except ones
+ * which have corresponding ISR bits set
+ */
+ lowest_priority_irq = 8;
+ }
+ else {
/* Find the highest priority IRQ that is enabled due to current ISR */
isr = BX_PIC_THIS s.slave_pic.isr;
if (isr) {
@@ -637,11 +643,17 @@
}
else
lowest_priority_irq = 8;
+ }
/* now, see if there are any higher priority requests */
if ((unmasked_requests = (BX_PIC_THIS s.slave_pic.irr & ~BX_PIC_THIS s.slave_pic.imr)) ) {
for (irq=0; irq<lowest_priority_irq; irq++) {
+ /* for special mode, since we're looking at all IRQ's, skip if
+ * current IRQ is already in-service
+ */
+ if ( BX_PIC_THIS s.slave_pic.special_mask && ((BX_PIC_THIS s.slave_pic.isr >> irq) & 0x01) )
+ continue;
if (unmasked_requests & (1 << irq)) {
if (bx_dbg.pic)
BX_DEBUG(("slave: signalling IRQ(%u)",