On 07.05.2011, at 00:25, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2011 14:00:35 +0200
> Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>
>> +static inline void booke206_flush_tlb_one(ppc_tlb_t *tlb, int num)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
>> + if ((tlb[i].tlbe.prot & PAGE_VALID) &&
>> + !(tlb[i].tlbe.attr & MAS1_IPROT)) {
>> + tlb[i].tlbe.prot = 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +}
>
> When this is called on reset, we want to ignore IPROT.
Ugh. Yes. This functions needs a constant parameter to know if it should check
for IPROT - and not do so on reset :).
> The valid check seems unnecessary.
Yup, but it really helps to reduce debug output when putting in some in that
line which I did :). It shouldn't really hurt, right?
>> +void helper_booke206_tlbsx(target_ulong address_hi, target_ulong address_lo)
>
> What is address_hi?
>
> From gen_tlbsx_booke206() it looks like these two arguments correspond to
> the two operands, so shouldn't they be added together? I only see
> address_lo used.
Yup. According to the e500 spec:
Note that rA = 0 is the preferred form for tlbsx and that some Freescale
implementations, such as the e500, take an illegal instruction exception
program interrupt if rA!=0.
So I figured that we're architecturally close enough if we just ignore it for
now :).
Alex
