Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 4/4] target-arm: Add missing SP_ELx register definition

[Peter Maydell]

On 23 January 2015 at 16:17, Greg Bellows <address@hidden> wrote:
> Added CP register definitions for SP_EL1 and SP_EL2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Bellows <address@hidden>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
>
> ---
>
> v1 -> v2
> - Remove unnecessary accessfn for SP_EL1/2
> - Revert SP_EL0 accessfn name to sp_el0_access
> ---
>  target-arm/helper.c | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
> index 29f3b62..79c54a9 100644
> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> @@ -2329,6 +2329,10 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_cp_reginfo[] = {
>        .access = PL1_RW, .accessfn = sp_el0_access,
>        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
>        .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, sp_el[0]) },
> +    { .name = "SP_EL1", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> +      .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 4, .crm = 1, .opc2 = 0,
> +      .access = PL2_RW, .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> +      .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, sp_el[1]) },
>      { .name = "SPSel", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
>        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 0, .crn = 4, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 0,
>        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> @@ -2410,6 +2414,10 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_el2_cp_reginfo[] = {
>        .access = PL2_RW, .writefn = vbar_write,
>        .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.vbar_el[2]),
>        .resetvalue = 0 },
> +    { .name = "SP_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> +      .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 4, .crm = 1, .opc2 = 0,
> +      .access = PL3_RW, .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> +      .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, sp_el[2]) },
>      REGINFO_SENTINEL
>  };

As I was assembling my target-arm queue I found that this patch
and the 'split ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE' patch semantically conflict;
since this patch happened to be earlier in the queue than that
one, I've resolved this by adding changes to the 'split' patch
which change these ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE uses to ARM_CP_ALIAS, in
line with how we handled the SP_EL0 regdef.

thanks
-- PMM