On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 at 13:52, Jim MacArthur <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 01:00:05PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 17:33, Jim MacArthur <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Jim MacArthur <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > target/arm/tcg/cpu64.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/target/arm/tcg/cpu64.c b/target/arm/tcg/cpu64.c > > > index f7a920a202..75c2027900 100644 > > > --- a/target/arm/tcg/cpu64.c > > > +++ b/target/arm/tcg/cpu64.c > > > @@ -159,8 +159,8 @@ static void cpu_arm_set_rme(Object *obj, bool value, > > > Error **errp) > > > { > > > ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj); > > > > > > - /* Enable FEAT_RME_GPC2 */ > > > - FIELD_DP64_IDREG(&cpu->isar, ID_AA64PFR0, RME, value ? 2 : 0); > > > + /* Enable FEAT_RME_GPC3 */ > > > + FIELD_DP64_IDREG(&cpu->isar, ID_AA64PFR0, RME, value ? 3 : 0); > > > } > > > > Just noticed this, but does this mean we should now list > > FEAT_RME_GPC3 in docs/system/arm/emulation.rst ? > > (If so, we can fix that as a followup patch.) > > > > Looking at this again, we don't currently implement the APAS instruction > which is a necessary part of FEAT_RME_GPC3, so probably shouldn't advertise > that in the documentation yet. > I'm unsure how to handle this instruction at the moment; it might be that we > can simply decode it and ignore it, in which case I can easily make up > another patch to complete FEAT_RME_GPC3, but if not I'll need to seek further > advice
If we don't think we've finished implementing the feature, we probably ideally shouldn't advertise it in the ID registers either, but given that this is an x- feature we can be more lenient there I guess. -- PMM
