[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 5/5] target/arm: Correctly implement Feat_DoubleLock
From: |
Richard Henderson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 5/5] target/arm: Correctly implement Feat_DoubleLock |
Date: |
Sat, 2 Jul 2022 19:49:11 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 |
On 7/1/22 01:11, Peter Maydell wrote:
+static inline bool isar_feature_any_doublelock(const ARMISARegisters *id)
+{
+ /*
+ * We can't just OR together the aa32 and aa64 checks, because
+ * if there is no AArch64 support the aa64 function will default
+ * to returning true for a zero id_aa64dfr0.
+ * We use "is id_aa64pfr0 non-zero" as a proxy for "do we have
+ * the AArch64 ID register values in id", because it's always the
+ * case that ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.EL0 at least will be non-zero.
+ */
+ if (id->id_aa64pfr0) {
+ return isar_feature_aa64_doublelock(id);
+ }
+ return isar_feature_aa32_doublelock(id);
+}
If you're going to rely on this, you need to clear this register for -cpu aarch64=off.
It's probably easier to drop this function...
+static void osdlr_write(CPUARMState *env, const ARMCPRegInfo *ri,
+ uint64_t value)
+{
+ /*
+ * Only defined bit is bit 0 (DLK); if Feat_DoubleLock is not
+ * implemented this is RAZ/WI.
+ */
+ if (cpu_isar_feature(any_doublelock, env_archcpu(env))) {
... and use
if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_AARCH64)
? cpu_isar_feature(aa64_doublelock, cpu)
: cpu_isar_feature(aa32_doublelock, cpu)) {
since it's just used once.
r~
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] target/arm: Correctly implement Feat_DoubleLock,
Richard Henderson <=