On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:22:40PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 07:08, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
> >
> > No functional change.
> > Prepares for future additions of the EL2 and 3 versions of this reg.
>
> > --- a/target-arm/machine.c
> > +++ b/target-arm/machine.c
> > @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ const VMStateDescription vmstate_arm_cpu = {
> > VMSTATE_UINT32_ARRAY(env.banked_r14, ARMCPU, 6),
> > VMSTATE_UINT32_ARRAY(env.usr_regs, ARMCPU, 5),
> > VMSTATE_UINT32_ARRAY(env.fiq_regs, ARMCPU, 5),
> > - VMSTATE_UINT64(env.elr_el1, ARMCPU),
> > + VMSTATE_UINT64(env.elr_el[ELR_EL_IDX(1)], ARMCPU),
> > VMSTATE_UINT64_ARRAY(env.sp_el, ARMCPU, 2),
> > /* The length-check must come before the arrays to avoid
> > * incoming data possibly overflowing the array.
>
> Do we add the rest of the elr_el[] array to the vmstate in
> a later patch?
Yes. I can squash the patches if you prefer but I did find it useful to
do some of these changes in steps of non-functional change followed
by the actual usage/addition of EL2/3 while developing.
Cheers,
Edgar
