On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 19 January 2014 01:46, Peter Crosthwaite > <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Peter Maydell >> <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> IIRC ARMv4 and earlier didn't define the MIDR, but we don't >>> actually emulate any of those. In general, my intent with all these >>> constant fields in the ARMCPU struct was that we'd end up making >>> them just properties available on all ARMCPU objects, and if the >>> particular subtype of ARMCPU happened not to have FP and so >>> didn't need the reset_fpsid, for example, it would just ignore whatever >>> value you set the property to. I don't think we need to tie ourselves >>> in knots to restrict the properties to particular CPUs if it is too >>> implementationally awkward (though it would be nice if we can >>> tie them to ARM_FEATURE_* bits for more or less free). >>> >> >> ARM_FEATURE_V5 exists. Will that do the job? That will exclude just >> the V4T AFAICT. Worth bothering? > > Probably not for MIDR, I think, though maybe for some of the > others we might like to.
I have removed the object_property_set_int() function as it is no longer required. I also didn't bother restricting the MIDR to ARMv5 > > thanks > -- PMM >
