qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/9] target-arm: Add HPFAR_EL2


From: Alex Bennée
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/9] target-arm: Add HPFAR_EL2
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:52:31 +0100
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.13; emacs 24.5.50.4

Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:

> On 7 October 2015 at 12:51, Alex Bennée <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <address@hidden>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>  target-arm/cpu.h    |  1 +
>>>  target-arm/helper.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
>>> index cc1578c..895f2c2 100644
>>> --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
>>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
>>> @@ -278,6 +278,7 @@ typedef struct CPUARMState {
>>>              };
>>>              uint64_t far_el[4];
>>>          };
>>> +        uint64_t hpfar_el2;
>>>          union { /* Translation result. */
>>>              struct {
>>>                  uint64_t _unused_par_0;
>>> diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
>>> index 8367997..5a5e5f0 100644
>>> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
>>> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
>>> @@ -3223,6 +3223,10 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo el3_no_el2_cp_reginfo[] = {
>>>      { .name = "CNTHP_CTL_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_BOTH,
>>>        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 14, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 1,
>>>        .access = PL2_RW, .type = ARM_CP_CONST, .resetvalue = 0 },
>>> +    { .name = "HPFAR_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_BOTH,
>>> +      .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 6, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 4,
>>> +      .access = PL2_RW, .accessfn = access_el3_aa32ns_aa64any,
>>> +      .type = ARM_CP_CONST, .resetvalue = 0 },
>>
>> So what happens if access_el3_aa32ns_aa64any thinks it is OK to access
>> the register from EL3 when there is no EL2? What ensures we get RES0?
>
> ...the fact we've defined it as an RW CONST register with a resetvalue
> of zero? Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Nope you didn't misunderstand, I was being dim comparing with the later
definitions ;-)

Thanks.

>
> thanks
> -- PMM

-- 
Alex Bennée



reply via email to

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