|Subject:||Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 06/23] target-arm: add arm_is_secure() function|
|Date:||Wed, 14 May 2014 17:22:36 -0500|
On 14 May 2014 21:22, Greg Bellows <address@hidden> wrote:The v8 ARM ARM at least allows the CPU to behave as if only
> I suppose it depends on how true we want to be to the specification and
> whether our default is NS=0 or NS=1 when the security extension is present
> or not. The code currently assumes non-secure as the default state.
NS was present if there is no implementation of the Security
extensions. I haven't checked the v7 wording.
(In general I think QEMU's implementation of this should follow
the v8 ARM ARM and treat v7 CPUs as a sort of special degenerate
The pseudocode in the ARM ARM is part of the spec. We should
> Is there a convention in qemu? How closely do we attempt to stay to the
> pseudo code provided in the spec?
strive to follow the spec. This doesn't necessarily mean matching
pseudocode functions exactly -- the requirement is to be
behaviourally the same, and sometimes the pseudocode is
written to be clear rather than efficient or to deal with situations
we don't necessarily care about.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|