Re: [PATCH 01/14] target/arm: add arm_is_el2_enabled() helper

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 11:06, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 10:58, <remi.denis.courmont@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi.denis.courmont@huawei.com>
> >
> > This checks if EL2 is enabled (meaning EL2 registers take effects) in
> > the current security context.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi.denis.courmont@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  target/arm/cpu.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h
> > index c18a916766..aaf3671806 100644
> > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h
> > @@ -2040,6 +2040,15 @@ static inline bool arm_is_secure(CPUARMState *env)
> >      return arm_is_secure_below_el3(env);
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Return true if the current security state has AArch64 EL2 or AArch32 
> > Hyp */
> > +static inline bool arm_is_el2_enabled(CPUARMState *env)
> > +{
> > +    if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_EL2)) {
> > +        return !arm_is_secure_below_el3(env);
> > +    }
> > +    return false;
>
> You could usefully add a comment mentioning the EL2Enabled()
> pseudocode and that we'll need to adjust this if we implement
> Secure EL2 in future.

I replied to this before the cover letter explaining what the
series is doing arrived in my inbox, so the second part of
my suggestion would be a bit pointless. The first part
(mentioning the name of the pseudocode function) still
seems worth doing.

thanks
-- PMM