On 7/30/21 7:13 PM, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 7/29/21 8:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 7/29/21 3:44 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 01:51, Richard Henderson >>> <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> We ought to have been recording the virtual address for reporting >>>> to the guest trap handler. >>>> >>>> Cc: qemu-...@nongnu.org >>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> target/ppc/excp_helper.c | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c >>>> index a79a0ed465..0b2c6de442 100644 >>>> --- a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c >>>> +++ b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c >>>> @@ -1503,6 +1503,8 @@ void ppc_cpu_do_unaligned_access(CPUState *cs, vaddr >>>> vaddr, >>>> CPUPPCState *env = cs->env_ptr; >>>> uint32_t insn; >>>> >>>> + env->spr[SPR_DAR] = vaddr; >>>> + >>> >>> Is this the right SPR for all PPC variants? For instance the >>> kernel's code in arch/powerpc/kernel/exceptions-64e.S looks >>> in SPRN_DEAR, which is our SPR_BOOKE_DEAR or SPR_40x_DEAR. > > Indeed :/ > >> I have no idea. I glanced through a handful of the mmu's, and looked at the >> current BookS docs, but that's certainly not all. > > I took a look at some more and for instance, e300 uses DAR and e500, 405, 476 > use DEAR. > > DAR should be consistent over the server processors.
and is_book3s_arch2x(env) is a good way to test. Thanks, C.
