Re: [hatari-devel] Possible bug in CPU emulation? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
- To: hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [hatari-devel] Possible bug in CPU emulation?
- From: Christian Zietz <czietz@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 20:11:16 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=czietz@xxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQGiBDdn2AURBADksdHVyN55nv0lx4qGx+GQMrbo7zs7lSkAfhkgmgqp84xUeUiWI/kj1on/ wxkmJ96Yzt0ktDbZYM0C9Z66M3rLfXE1vXALHhegeMuOy/tVWybcohRrhfB7tmANTESJOZke 0lZZ59DcIfFoqLYErb6qX8nLPYnOv6sFubxnhuF9QQCg/3GaIR1sVK9Xq+b4B9BtVxd7cHMD /i2hAEOX3WY3K7PNZJziYF54uBbGiVS88W41l1RARcaeogIZcAKpFH3on+Tf60fAC85MCp17 QIeP44hj4Cf46B+UTVhf3EFG4IOsLRxUonpt7dKO8txsKFN/OFsjlPOuDyg7XMpEWkTWZetm HC9/0pcApIXSDnggde4T8AX6nn/+A/4hBOhPxuvkV7Uw/ebLYwXrLo2vt9OvvC1VfeywNseq PIkFX/+n/+niBS+Cb2ess2SVQNKJ9vP5+vBxg5AMfQXqk1ONldGQ/ARHmL6+Iuo47mO51e7R i691hq13wHUvyKh1AN7fpKI2m3YW55XEQ+3iTMIZcqfjr6xYgG8GJTppdbQgQ2hyaXN0aWFu IFppZXR6IDxjemlldHpAZ214Lm5ldD6IYwQQEQIAIwIZAQIeAQIXgAUCVGD5IgcLCQgHAwIB BhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAAoJEFLLl/ZtoCXKubQAoIHNaurSMQB8MHDoTk3B7WHk2ApoAJ0egA8q aNoVj0kU4+OjeGzFiSHMOrkCDQQ3Z9gFEAgA9kJXtwh/CBdyorrWqULzBej5UxE5T7bxbrlL OCDaAadWoxTpj0BV89AHxstDqZSt90xkhkn4DIO9ZekX1KHTUPj1WV/cdlJPPT2N286Z4VeS Wc39uK50T8X8dryDxUcwYc58yWb/Ffm7/ZFexwGq01uejaClcjrUGvC/RgBYK+X0iP1YTknb zSC0neSRBzZrM2w4DUUdD3yIsxx8Wy2O9vPJI8BD8KVbGI2Ou1WMuF040zT9fBdXQ6MdGGze MyEstSr/POGxKUAYEY18hKcKctaGxAMZyAcpesqVDNmWn6vQClCbAkbTCD1mpF1Bn5x8vYlL IhkmuquiXsNV6TILOwACAgf+JhucyZDzOWGht9e0U71kC2bxIOr4iz+ADd3sxS62okrocHXp B9zYDhmJ74BFfC7xMd9bwWNj7YR0yiUdOzY27OcXcEkVmhVBW6AqxuRAKfmYMvvnyR5z5OP6 vg2YSzgOmooc5vequa5YIjLmFkuRlglLiEgdW9gPBFtirNqxOtAqSxEcRrblSn8JBEU51Ii6 SVVuo1nXOP11g8rVO4YvEED89pHT4jgLZu4th1N+mDumNZlqyUIxZ4tQyw3X2OWvEbKWGn2j h0ZywaomUTpVA+wiwxndawP40oowFYT8LNeLtfZyq6xPpQmT2DaNhP4gdy3qkDfnmXkc2zFM YukXo4g/AwUYN2fYBVLLl/ZtoCXKEQKA3QCfTJstYzXurbt9ZnoTU3SFQQmG0/wAoNX91nWM nsS7JOepPAzOUoke4AIi
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1570558278; bh=9pxbfUBPDtLuvNbYY0a8ssVChsVwn3+/gP5WCXFbMK4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CCnMHiloYU+8/M1jZMEqyD5bql+6Elx6OKiP4eTjE0X9wda6ib+lr9Rfy6UMytF9P 7IJM89XOBadX4+JHaFSlmSrI/MUTLfGPcqrDcuvRaRl6JrV4JEcGLsB+g+7Ee6MSHt a0o8K4zjEOmXSU3TZejkEUpqgdqyuRZrDPGbXR0Q=
- Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Uwe Seimet schrieb:
> Any idea why nobody has ever noticed that before? CBHD was discontinued
> more than 22 years ago, and only now it has been found that with ICD
> compatible hardware it never worked for XHDI sector counts > 255? That's
> rather surprising, but of course not completely impossible.
> Do you know whether there is the same issue with Rwabs and sector counts
>> 255, or just with XHDI?
Tracing SCSI/ACSI commands and DMA register access with Hatari reveals
that with Rwabs any access is split into multiples of 127 (not even 255)
sectors. CBHD handles this incorrectly just with XHDI. I'm not going to
dig into CBHD to find out why -- unless someone comes up with the source
code.
Probably XHDI isn't used that much. Or CBHD itself isn't used that much.
Regards
Christian
--
Christian Zietz - CHZ-Soft - czietz@xxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.chzsoft.de/
PGP/GnuPG-Key-ID: 0x52CB97F66DA025CA / 0x6DA025CA