From patchwork Mon Oct 9 16:28:13 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Mark Rages X-Patchwork-Id: 23414 Received: (qmail 3048 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2017 16:28:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Delivered-To: mailing list gdb-patches@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 3038 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2017 16:28:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-25.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FROM, GIT_PATCH_0, GIT_PATCH_1, GIT_PATCH_2, GIT_PATCH_3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=meet X-HELO: mail-pf0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-pf0-f179.google.com) (209.85.192.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:28:16 +0000 Received: by mail-pf0-f179.google.com with SMTP id n73so7596606pfg.10 for ; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:28:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a2qwaxpj8KHtaG9NnmU+OscUmuCNEwovSw1OmJaPIRY=; b=jcWMzZAczojfk+1FP3MnTffTJacg10BO5F3S1vw3sarxMJ6RRlN7F2RqugIT6tkzSF 5LRzctshgfTR1craPBN9W124zL2IpsEmMbg/g+7RVvhxHCqZ2rz37mGpEfweW8ZTcIbB 0xPq15lHUT1BGor702wk1NQDpLbEBXIFhloTH6PxpKaeoydZj1MT784Asahk+JrJY+YD IyvK+R9keD+g94Fwoh6x+mE0GDENAHeVUABxuwwmVlgFZXg33QHY6nPeeCYFnK731oxL TS9XYWuVrensfG4EDUOzTmKz+STGSZ+/98Ynh86iMNU40ORMpSMK4ILVgpwd+QiEV2En Dnsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXT7xQQqOg5RkxucPFGPnt03/lX7d0h+FdEuj3zdFd/9uizyil3 qGsqu2QiPik3EzbZBEvp/EKWHEtGhyzj6xfl0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDKpVjHQMqVNpu1uUkta9F5bDEqwIQrYqFaiTFytyY9ARWGu1cmErvO9jNdfCcuZ6E0kysL8UbGVGVIaKxj1iM= X-Received: by 10.84.131.103 with SMTP id 94mr9609692pld.302.1507566494618; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:28:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.180.129 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:28:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20171007144252.05e2b69e@pinnacle.lan> References: <20171007144252.05e2b69e@pinnacle.lan> From: Mark Rages Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:28:13 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Flash memory size not aligned to address To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-IsSubscribed: yes On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > I did notice, however, that you added [PATCH] to the subject line, > so perhaps you were just getting the subject line formatted in > such a way so that it might be noticed? Indeed, that was my plan. > > Do you have an FSF Copyright Assignment? > No. > ChangeLog entries are generally not posted as patches. It is unlikely > that this portion of the patch will cleanly apply once it's approved. Ok. Thank you for pointing me to the wiki. I was going off of gdb/CONTRIBUTE. Which one is authoritative? > It occurs to me that address_in_region might be better named > offset_in_region. Updated patch follows. > It seems to me that there will be no difference in behavior for > targets whose region boundaries are already aligned to the block size. > I do wonder, however, about behavior on other targets that don't meet > this criteria. I'm hoping that someone else who has more experience in > this area will comment. The only situation I can think of would be a device that begins a section of flash unaligned, but requires an aligned address for the erase command. I'm not aware of such, but it's a big world. Anyway, thanks for looking it over. Here goes second try: gdb/ChangeLog: * target-memory.c (block_boundaries): Fix for block address not aligned on block size. diff --git a/gdb/target-memory.c b/gdb/target-memory.c index 1c8faa8..7f048de 100644 --- a/gdb/target-memory.c +++ b/gdb/target-memory.c @@ -138,14 +138,18 @@ block_boundaries (CORE_ADDR address, CORE_ADDR *begin, CORE_ADDR *end) { struct mem_region *region; unsigned blocksize; + CORE_ADDR offset_in_region; region = lookup_mem_region (address); gdb_assert (region->attrib.mode == MEM_FLASH); blocksize = region->attrib.blocksize; + + offset_in_region = address - region->lo; + if (begin) - *begin = address / blocksize * blocksize; + *begin = region->lo + offset_in_region / blocksize * blocksize; if (end) - *end = (address + blocksize - 1) / blocksize * blocksize; + *end = region->lo + (offset_in_region + blocksize - 1) / blocksize * blocksize; }