omap_gpmc: Accept a zero mask field on omap3630

OMAP3630 adds an extra bit of address masking, so a mask of
0xb1111 is valid. Unfortunately the GPMC_REVISION is the same as
on the OMAP3430 which only has three bits of address masking, so
we have to derive this feature directly from the OMAP revision
rather than from the GPMC revision.

Signed-off-by: Juha Riihimäki <juha.riihimaki@nokia.com>
[Riku Voipio: Fixes and restructuring patchset]
Signed-off-by: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>
[Peter Maydell: More fixes and cleanups for upstream submission]
Signed-off-by:  Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

diff --git a/hw/omap_gpmc.c b/hw/omap_gpmc.c
index d2de72f3d46a176218ada3b9415b118d9753e046..0326d49f4f28f6e549fa2c3fad5e289cc9100731 100644 (file)
--- a/hw/omap_gpmc.c
+++ b/hw/omap_gpmc.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
 struct omap_gpmc_s {
     qemu_irq irq;
     MemoryRegion iomem;
+    int accept_256;
 
     uint8_t revision;
     uint8_t sysconfig;
@@ -198,11 +199,10 @@ static void omap_gpmc_cs_map(struct omap_gpmc_s *s, int cs)
     }
 
     /* TODO: check for overlapping regions and report access errors */
-    if ((mask != 0x8 && mask != 0xc && mask != 0xe && mask != 0xf) ||
-        (base & 0x0f & ~mask)) {
-        fprintf(stderr, "%s: wrong cs address mapping/decoding!\n",
-                        __FUNCTION__);
-        return;
+    if (mask != 0x8 && mask != 0xc && mask != 0xe && mask != 0xf
+         && !(s->accept_256 && !mask)) {
+        fprintf(stderr, "%s: invalid chip-select mask address (0x%x)\n",
+                 __func__, mask);
     }
 
     base <<= 24;
@@ -570,6 +570,7 @@ struct omap_gpmc_s *omap_gpmc_init(struct omap_mpu_state_s *mpu,
     memory_region_add_subregion(get_system_memory(), base, &s->iomem);
 
     s->irq = irq;
+    s->accept_256 = cpu_is_omap3630(mpu);
     s->revision = cpu_class_omap3(mpu) ? 0x50 : 0x20;
     omap_gpmc_reset(s);