On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 09:11:45AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> In the old DABR register, the BT (Breakpoint Translation) bit
> is bit number 61. In the new DAWRX register, the WT (Watchpoint
> Translation) bit is bit number 59. So to move the DABR-BT bit
> into the position of the DAWRX-WT bit, it
On 20/11/15 09:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
> In the old DABR register, the BT (Breakpoint Translation) bit
> is bit number 61. In the new DAWRX register, the WT (Watchpoint
> Translation) bit is bit number 59. So to move the DABR-BT bit
> into the position of the DAWRX-WT bit, it has to be shifted by
>
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:11:45 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> In the old DABR register, the BT (Breakpoint Translation) bit
> is bit number 61. In the new DAWRX register, the WT (Watchpoint
> Translation) bit is bit number 59. So to move the DABR-BT bit
> into the position of the DAWRX-WT bit, it has t
On 20/11/2015 09:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
> In the old DABR register, the BT (Breakpoint Translation) bit
> is bit number 61. In the new DAWRX register, the WT (Watchpoint
> Translation) bit is bit number 59. So to move the DABR-BT bit
> into the position of the DAWRX-WT bit, it has to be shifted b
In the old DABR register, the BT (Breakpoint Translation) bit
is bit number 61. In the new DAWRX register, the WT (Watchpoint
Translation) bit is bit number 59. So to move the DABR-BT bit
into the position of the DAWRX-WT bit, it has to be shifted by
two, not only by one. This fixes hardware watchp