On 17 April 2015 at 16:47, Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> On 27 March 2015 at 19:10, Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > Add support for trapping WFI and WFE instructions to the proper EL when >> > SCTLR/SCR/HCR settings apply. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org> >> > --- >> > target-arm/op_helper.c | 75 >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >> > 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/target-arm/op_helper.c b/target-arm/op_helper.c >> > index aa175b5..d7e734d 100644 >> > --- a/target-arm/op_helper.c >> > +++ b/target-arm/op_helper.c >> > @@ -209,23 +209,90 @@ uint32_t HELPER(usat16)(CPUARMState *env, uint32_t >> > x, uint32_t shift) >> > return res; >> > } >> > >> > +static inline uint32_t check_wfx_trap(CPUARMState *env, bool is_wfe) >> >> Why uint32_t rather than int? > > > EL can't be negative so this made sense.
Mostly our existing functions that return an EL use 'int' (eg arm_current_el()), so my thinking was that 'int' would be more in line with those. -- PMM
