[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] arm: basic support for ARMv4/ARMv4T emulati

From: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/3] arm: basic support for ARMv4/ARMv4T emulation
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 01:31:13 +0300

On 3/26/11, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 26 March 2011 17:23, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>> Can we assume (maybe temporarily) that all v5 are also v5TE?
>> It seems it's currently done so, and I don't want to be too intrusive.
> All the cores we currently model that are v5 are v5TE, I think.
> The current (v7) ARM ARM says the valid v5 variants are
> v5T, v5TE and v5TEJ (with plain "ARMv5" only being in an
> "obsolete variants" list), so I think we should distinguish v5T

Isn't there also the v5TExP? For which I know no chips in the wild.

> and v5TE (the only difference being that a handful of instructions
> are v5TE only, so that isn't a very intrusive change, it's just
> saying ARCH(5TE) in a few of the places where your patch has ARCH(5)).
> So I think we should have ENABLE_ARCH_5T and ENABLE_ARCH_5TE macros
> so we can use ARCH(5T) and ARCH(5TE), and not bother with a plain
> ARCH(5) since it's "obsolete"...
> (Mostly what I'd like is for us to use the right value of 'foo'
> where we add ARCH(foo) checks, just so we can trust them in future
> and don't have to go back and recheck them. I don't mind if they
> all turn out to be checking the same actual feature flag.)

OK. I can then try to check all ARCH(5), substituting them if necessary with
ARCH(5TE) or (5T), but for now this will just end with check for ARM_FEATURE_V5.
Did I get your idea correct? But this (most probably) will be more or
less with low
priority patch idea for me.

With best wishes

reply via email to

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