[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] pl031: Expose RTCICR as proper WC register
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] pl031: Expose RTCICR as proper WC register |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:42:10 +0000 |
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 11:57, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 07:28, Alexander Graf <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I still think that being consistent with the actual PL031 spec is
> > preferable though. If any real world guest breaks because of this, we
> > can still revert this patch and document the exact breakage in the
> > comment instead.
>
> Yeah, I agree; I'm essentially just gathering material
> for the commit message here. (The gold standard would be
> to go find some hardware with a real pl031 and prod it
> to confirm behaviour, but that's more effort than really
> seems justified to me.)
I propose to put this in for 4.2 with an updated commit message:
===begin===
pl031: Expose RTCICR as proper WC register
The current PL031 RTCICR register implementation always clears the
IRQ pending status on a register write, regardless of the value the
guest writes.
To justify that behavior, it references the ARM926EJ-S Development
Chip Reference Manual (DDI0287B) and indicates that said document
states that any write clears the internal IRQ state. It is indeed
true that in section 11.1 this document says:
"The interrupt is cleared by writing any data value to the
interrupt clear register RTCICR".
However, later in section 11.2.2 it contradicts itself by saying:
"Writing 1 to bit 0 of RTCICR clears the RTCINTR flag."
The latter statement matches the PL031 TRM (DDI0224C), which says:
"Writing 1 to bit position 0 clears the corresponding interrupt.
Writing 0 has no effect."
Let's assume that the self-contradictory DDI0287B is in error, and
follow the reference manual for the device itself, by making the
register write-one-to-clear.
===endit===
Is that OK?
thanks
-- PMM