On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:24:42PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 6 May 2014 07:08, Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden> wrote:
From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <address@hidden>
Maps a given EL to the corresponding MMU index.
Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden>
---
target-arm/cpu.h | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
target-arm/translate-a64.c | 8 ++------
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
index ff86250..938f389 100644
--- a/target-arm/cpu.h
+++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
@@ -1086,9 +1086,28 @@ static inline CPUARMState *cpu_init(const char
*cpu_model)
#define MMU_MODE0_SUFFIX _kernel
#define MMU_MODE1_SUFFIX _user
#define MMU_USER_IDX 1
+static inline int arm_el_to_mmu_idx(int current_el)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
+ return MMU_USER_IDX;
+#else
+ switch (current_el) {
+ case 0:
+ return MMU_USER_IDX;
+ case 1:
+ return 0;
+ default:
+ /* Unsupported EL. */
+ assert(0);
+ return 0;
+ }
+#endif
Can we just make the EL and the MMU index the same thing,
or is secure-vs-nonsecure going to need its own MMU
indexes anyway?
Right, I did the conversion to 1:1 mapping at an early stage
but avoided it as we will need an indirect mapping for
Secure EL0/1 anyway.