On 10/21/26 12:57, mdspan wrote:
Ping.
Paolo, Richard: does masking in get_physical_address(), with TLB
entries kept per tag and INVLPG flushing all aliases through
tlb_flush_page_bits_by_mmuidx(), look acceptable to you? I have a
prototype of items 1 and 2 and can post it as an RFC series if that
would be easier to review.
Yes, this is what we do in target/arm for top-byte-ignore.
In particular, arm requires the complete address, including tagging, to
be available for any raised exception. So clipping the address at any
other place loses that information. Dunno if that applies to LAM.
r~
