qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 02/22] target-arm: Make elr_el1 an array


From: Peter Maydell
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 02/22] target-arm: Make elr_el1 an array
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 15:19:36 +0100

On 8 May 2014 01:13, Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:10:54PM +1000, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > No functional change.
>> > Prepares for future additions of the EL2 and 3 versions of this reg.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <address@hidden>
>> > ---
>> >  target-arm/cpu.h        | 3 ++-
>> >  target-arm/helper-a64.c | 4 ++--
>> >  target-arm/helper.c     | 3 ++-
>> >  target-arm/kvm64.c      | 4 ++--
>> >  target-arm/machine.c    | 2 +-
>> >  target-arm/op_helper.c  | 6 +++---
>> >  6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
>> > index c83f249..eb7a0f5 100644
>> > --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
>> > +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
>> > @@ -162,7 +162,8 @@ typedef struct CPUARMState {
>> >      uint32_t condexec_bits; /* IT bits.  cpsr[15:10,26:25].  */
>> >      uint64_t daif; /* exception masks, in the bits they are in in PSTATE 
>> > */
>> >
>> > -    uint64_t elr_el1; /* AArch64 ELR_EL1 */
>> > +#define ELR_EL_IDX(x) (x - 1)
>> > +    uint64_t elr_el[1]; /* AArch64 exception link regs  */
>>
>> Is it perhaps just easier to waste the space and always pad these
>> EL-banked CP arrays out to length 4 you can just use literal numbers
>> in the code? Probably make life easier when introspecting the CPU
>> state in GDB too.
>
> Thanks Peter,
>
> I've fixed all your comments except this one. I considered this
> pattern but avoided it due to the bloating of CPUARMState. Anyway,
> I'm happy to change to this full array allocation if others agree.
>
> PMM, what is your preference on this?

I think I'd rather we just padded the array to length 4.

thanks
-- PMM



reply via email to

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