On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:53:54AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 05:28:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Kristina Martsenko wrote: > > > > +#define ESR_ELx_EC_PAC (0x09) > > > > Really minor nit: but shouldn't this be ESR_EL2_EC_PAC, since this trap > > can't occur at EL1 afaict? > > It can also be taken to EL3 dependent on SCR_EL3.API. > > We use ESR_ELx_EC_<foo> for other exceptions that can't be taken to EL1 > (e.g. ESR_ELx_EC_SMC{32,64}), so I think it would be more consistent to > leave this as ESR_ELx_EC_PAC rather than ESR_EL2_EC_PAC.
Fair enough, but if we grow a different EC for ESR_EL1 that uses encoding 0x09, this all falls apart. At the very list, maybe we should comment those that are EL2 or higher with /* EL2 and above */ or just fix the misnomer and drop the useless _ELx_ part of the names completely. Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm