Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/9] arm: add dummy gic security registers

[Mark Langsdorf]

On 12/20/2011 01:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 December 2011 19:11, Mark Langsdorf<address@hidden>  wrote:
>> From: Rob Herring<address@hidden>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring<address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Langsdorf<address@hidden>
>> ---
>>   hw/arm_gic.c |   10 ++++++++--
>>   1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/arm_gic.c b/hw/arm_gic.c
>> index 9b52119..5974c2f 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm_gic.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm_gic.c
>> @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ static uint32_t gic_dist_readb(void *opaque,
>> target_phys_addr_t offset)
>>
>>      cpu = gic_get_current_cpu();
>>      cm = 1<<  cpu;
>> -    if (offset<  0x100) {
>> +    if (offset<  0x80) {
>>   #ifndef NVIC
>>          if (offset == 0)
>>              return s->enabled;
>> @@ -284,6 +284,9 @@ static uint32_t gic_dist_readb(void *opaque,
>> target_phys_addr_t offset)
>>              return 0;
>>   #endif
>>          goto bad_reg;
>> +    } else if (offset<  0x100) {
>> +        /* Interrupt Security */
>> +        return 0;
> 
> This won't actually break anything, but really the handling of 0x80..0xff
> would be inside the first if() clause, because of the way we piggyback
> the v7M NVIC off these functions. (We should clean that up, really).
> Anyway, the v7M NVIC doesn't own 0x0..0xff, which is what the first
> if () clause is marking off. Ditto in the write function.
> 
> It would also be nice to have the comment explicitly say that these
> registers are defined to RAZ/WI in GIC implementations that don't
> implement the security extensions.
> 
I'm not sure what changes you want made here. I can resubmit with
the comment. But I don't know how qemu piggybacks the v7M NVIC so I
don't understand what you want done.

--Mark Langsdorf
Calxeda, Inc.