qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Implement basic part of SA-1110/SA-1100


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Implement basic part of SA-1110/SA-1100
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:34:07 +0000

On 22 March 2011 14:53, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <address@hidden> wrote:

>  static inline int arm_feature(CPUARMState *env, int feature)
> @@ -391,6 +392,19 @@ void cpu_arm_set_cp_io(CPUARMState *env, int cpnum,
>  #define ARM_CPUID_ARM946      0x41059461
>  #define ARM_CPUID_TI915T      0x54029152
>  #define ARM_CPUID_TI925T      0x54029252
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1100      0x4401A11B
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1100_B    0x4401A111
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1100_C    0x4401A112
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1100_D    0x4401A118
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1100_E    0x4401A119
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1100_G    0x4401A11B
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1110      0x6901B119
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1110_A0   0x6901B110
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1110_B0   0x6901B114
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1110_B1   0x6901B115
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1110_B2   0x6901B116
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1110_B4   0x6901B118
> +#define ARM_CPUID_SA1110_B5   0x6901B119
>  #define ARM_CPUID_PXA250      0x69052100
>  #define ARM_CPUID_PXA255      0x69052d00
>  #define ARM_CPUID_PXA260      0x69052903

Yikes. Do we really need 13 new strongarm CPU types?
That's half again as many as we currently have defined
for ARM CPUs of all flavours.

> @@ -1522,6 +1549,8 @@ void HELPER(set_cp15)(CPUState *env, uint32_t insn, 
> uint32_t val)
>     case 9:
>         if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_OMAPCP))
>             break;
> +        if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_STRONGARM))
> +            break; /* Ignore ReadBuffer access */
>         switch (crm) {
>         case 0: /* Cache lockdown.  */
>            switch (op1) {

I know we don't really have very good infrastructure for handling
device-specific cp15 registers, but I'm not sure defining a new
FEATURE_STRONGARM is the right approach here. (Yeah, it's just
following ARM_FEATURE_OMAPCP but I don't like that either :-))
I'll have a think about whether we can do something cleaner in
this area (and indeed with the translate-time access checks).

PS: CODING_STYLE mandates braces on all if statements...

-- PMM



reply via email to

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