[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 06/13] target/arm: Use FIELD macros for clearing ID_DFR0 PERF

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] target/arm: Use FIELD macros for clearing ID_DFR0 PERFMON field
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 07:48:11 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1

On 2/11/20 6:37 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
We already define FIELD macros for ID_DFR0, so use them in the
one place where we're doing direct bit value manipulation.

Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
We have lots of this non-FIELD style in the code, of course;
I change this one purely because it otherwise looks a bit odd
sat next to the ID_AA64DFR0 line that was changed in the previous
  target/arm/cpu.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c
index dc582da8fa4..e7858b073b5 100644
--- a/target/arm/cpu.c
+++ b/target/arm/cpu.c
@@ -1603,7 +1603,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error 
      } else {
          cpu->id_aa64dfr0 = FIELD_DP32(cpu->id_aa64dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0, PMUVER, 

While this one should be FIELD_DP64(),

-        cpu->id_dfr0 &= ~(0xf << 24);
+        cpu->id_dfr0 = FIELD_DP32(cpu->id_dfr0, ID_DFR0, PERFMON, 0);

this one is correct.

Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>

          cpu->pmceid0 = 0;
          cpu->pmceid1 = 0;

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]