On 30 May 2014, at 09:28, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com> > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com> > --- > target-arm/cpu.h | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h > index 9eddcc1..66c58bd 100644 > --- a/target-arm/cpu.h > +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h > @@ -1133,6 +1133,13 @@ bool write_cpustate_to_list(ARMCPU *cpu); > static inline bool arm_excp_unmasked(CPUState *cs, unsigned int excp_idx) > { > CPUARMState *env = cs->env_ptr; > + unsigned int cur_el = arm_current_pl(env); > + unsigned int target_el = arm_excp_target_el(cs, excp_idx); > + > + /* Don't take exceptions if they target a lower EL. */ > + if (cur_el > target_el) { > + return false; > + } Hi Edgar When making arm_excp_unmasked() reflect tables D1-13, D1-14, D1-15 and G1-18, G1-19 in ARM ARMv8 this should not be necessary if I am not mistaken. Cases in which target_el is lower than cur_el are marked with a P (pending) in the table. Or am I missing something interpreting the tables? I extended your arm_excp_unmasked() and arm_excp_target_el() to reflect the behaviour shown in the tables in ARM ARMv8 and ARM ARMv7. I will send them with the TZ patches. Best, Fabian > > switch (excp_idx) { > case EXCP_FIQ: > -- > 1.8.3.2 >