Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH v3 3/7] target-arm: Add the IL flag to syn_data_abort

[Peter Maydell]

On 29 April 2016 at 13:08, Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden> wrote:
> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <address@hidden>
>
> Add the IL flag to syn_data_abort(). Since we at the moment
> never set ISV, the IL flag is always set to one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden>
> ---
>  target-arm/internals.h | 4 +++-
>  target-arm/op_helper.c | 6 ++++--
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/internals.h b/target-arm/internals.h
> index 2e70272..34e2688 100644
> --- a/target-arm/internals.h
> +++ b/target-arm/internals.h
> @@ -384,9 +384,11 @@ static inline uint32_t syn_insn_abort(int same_el, int 
> ea, int s1ptw, int fsc)
>  }
>
>  static inline uint32_t syn_data_abort(int same_el, int ea, int cm, int s1ptw,
> -                                      int wnr, int fsc)
> +                                      int wnr, int fsc,
> +                                      bool is_16bit)
>  {
>      return (EC_DATAABORT << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT) | (same_el << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT)
> +        | (is_16bit ? 0 : ARM_EL_IL)
>          | (ea << 9) | (cm << 8) | (s1ptw << 7) | (wnr << 6) | fsc;
>  }
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/op_helper.c b/target-arm/op_helper.c
> index d626ff1..e69c1de 100644
> --- a/target-arm/op_helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/op_helper.c
> @@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ void tlb_fill(CPUState *cs, target_ulong addr, int 
> is_write, int mmu_idx,
>              syn = syn_insn_abort(same_el, 0, fi.s1ptw, syn);
>              exc = EXCP_PREFETCH_ABORT;
>          } else {
> -            syn = syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, fi.s1ptw, is_write == 1, 
> syn);
> +            syn = syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, fi.s1ptw, is_write == 1, syn,
> +                                 1);
>              if (is_write == 1 && arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V6)) {
>                  fsr |= (1 << 11);
>              }
> @@ -161,7 +162,8 @@ void arm_cpu_do_unaligned_access(CPUState *cs, vaddr 
> vaddr, int is_write,
>      }
>
>      raise_exception(env, EXCP_DATA_ABORT,
> -                    syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, 0, is_write == 1, 0x21),
> +                    syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, 0, is_write == 1, 0x21,
> +                                   1),
>                      target_el);
>  }

Shouldn't this patch be squashed into patch 4? Pretty much everything it
does is undone by the next patch...

thanks
-- PMM