On Wed, 13 May 2020 14:33:34 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Currently there are multiple instances of parange feature width mask open
> encodings while fetching it's value. Even the width mask value (0x7) itself
> is not accurate. It should be (0xf) per ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.PARange[3:0] as in
> ARM
On Wed, 13 May 2020 14:33:34 +0530
Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Currently there are multiple instances of parange feature width mask open
> encodings while fetching it's value. Even the width mask value (0x7) itself
> is not accurate. It should be (0xf) per ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.PARange[3:0] as in
>
On Mon, 18 May 2020 18:09:34 +0100,
Will Deacon wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:33:34PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > Currently there are multiple instances of parange feature width mask open
> > > encodings while
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 05:59:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:33:34PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > Currently there are multiple instances of parange feature width mask open
> > encodings while fetching it's value. Even the width mask value (0x7) itself
> > is not
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:33:34PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Currently there are multiple instances of parange feature width mask open
> encodings while fetching it's value. Even the width mask value (0x7) itself
> is not accurate. It should be (0xf) per ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.PARange[3:0] as in
Currently there are multiple instances of parange feature width mask open
encodings while fetching it's value. Even the width mask value (0x7) itself
is not accurate. It should be (0xf) per ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.PARange[3:0] as in
ARM ARM (0487F.a). Replace them with
