Many registers whose 'cooked' writefns induce TLB maintenance do
not have raw_writefn ops defined. If only the writefn ops is set
(ie. no raw_writefn is provided), it is assumed the cooked also
work as the raw one. For those registers it is not obvious the
tlb_flush works on KVM mode so better/safe
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 17:17, Eric Auger wrote:
>
> Many registers whose 'cooked' writefns induce TLB maintenance do
> not have raw_writefn ops defined. If only the writefn ops is set
> (ie. no raw_writefn is provided), it is assumed the cooked also
> work as the raw one. For those registers it is
Hi Peter,
On 2/3/23 19:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 17:17, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Many registers whose 'cooked' writefns induce TLB maintenance do
>> not have raw_writefn ops defined. If only the writefn ops is set
>> (ie. no raw_writefn is provided), it is assumed the cooked al
On 3/2/23 19:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 17:17, Eric Auger wrote:
Many registers whose 'cooked' writefns induce TLB maintenance do
not have raw_writefn ops defined. If only the writefn ops is set
(ie. no raw_writefn is provided), it is assumed the cooked also
work as the raw
On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 12:15, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>
> On 3/2/23 19:04, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > Anything with type ARM_CP_NO_RAW shouldn't need a .raw_writefn, because
> > that type indication says that it's a bug if we ever call
> > read_raw_cp_reg() or write_raw_cp_reg() on it. (Specifi
