On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 06:06:34PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 29 April 2016 at 13:08, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
> >
> > Add the IL flag to syn_data_abort(). Since we at the moment
> > never set ISV, the IL flag is always set to one.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> > target-arm/internals.h | 4 +++-
> > target-arm/op_helper.c | 6 ++++--
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target-arm/internals.h b/target-arm/internals.h
> > index 2e70272..34e2688 100644
> > --- a/target-arm/internals.h
> > +++ b/target-arm/internals.h
> > @@ -384,9 +384,11 @@ static inline uint32_t syn_insn_abort(int same_el, int
> > ea, int s1ptw, int fsc)
> > }
> >
> > static inline uint32_t syn_data_abort(int same_el, int ea, int cm, int
> > s1ptw,
> > - int wnr, int fsc)
> > + int wnr, int fsc,
> > + bool is_16bit)
> > {
> > return (EC_DATAABORT << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT) | (same_el << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT)
> > + | (is_16bit ? 0 : ARM_EL_IL)
> > | (ea << 9) | (cm << 8) | (s1ptw << 7) | (wnr << 6) | fsc;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/target-arm/op_helper.c b/target-arm/op_helper.c
> > index d626ff1..e69c1de 100644
> > --- a/target-arm/op_helper.c
> > +++ b/target-arm/op_helper.c
> > @@ -115,7 +115,8 @@ void tlb_fill(CPUState *cs, target_ulong addr, int
> > is_write, int mmu_idx,
> > syn = syn_insn_abort(same_el, 0, fi.s1ptw, syn);
> > exc = EXCP_PREFETCH_ABORT;
> > } else {
> > - syn = syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, fi.s1ptw, is_write == 1,
> > syn);
> > + syn = syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, fi.s1ptw, is_write == 1,
> > syn,
> > + 1);
> > if (is_write == 1 && arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V6)) {
> > fsr |= (1 << 11);
> > }
> > @@ -161,7 +162,8 @@ void arm_cpu_do_unaligned_access(CPUState *cs, vaddr
> > vaddr, int is_write,
> > }
> >
> > raise_exception(env, EXCP_DATA_ABORT,
> > - syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, 0, is_write == 1, 0x21),
> > + syn_data_abort(same_el, 0, 0, 0, is_write == 1, 0x21,
> > + 1),
> > target_el);
> > }
>
> Shouldn't this patch be squashed into patch 4? Pretty much everything it
> does is undone by the next patch...
Yes, sounds good, we can do that.
Thanks,
Edgar
