On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 26 January 2015 at 19:34, Greg Bellows wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Peter Maydell >
> > wrote:
> >> Because that's what the ARM ARM specifies. Compare C3.2.5 (A64 LDT &c)
> >> with F7.1.95 (A32/T32 LDRT).
> >
> >
> > I ha
On 26 January 2015 at 19:34, Greg Bellows wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> Because that's what the ARM ARM specifies. Compare C3.2.5 (A64 LDT &c)
>> with F7.1.95 (A32/T32 LDRT).
>
>
> I had been comparing the wording of ARMv8 - F1.6.3 and ARMv7 - A4.6.3.
> After
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 26 January 2015 at 14:40, Greg Bellows wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Peter Maydell <
> peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The MMU index to use for unprivileged loads and stores is more
> >> complicated than we
On 26 January 2015 at 14:40, Greg Bellows wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>>
>> The MMU index to use for unprivileged loads and stores is more
>> complicated than we currently implement:
>> * for A64, it should be "if at EL1, access as if EL0; otherwise
>>ac
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> The MMU index to use for unprivileged loads and stores is more
> complicated than we currently implement:
> * for A64, it should be "if at EL1, access as if EL0; otherwise
>access at current EL"
> * for A32/T32, it should be "if EL2,
The MMU index to use for unprivileged loads and stores is more
complicated than we currently implement:
* for A64, it should be "if at EL1, access as if EL0; otherwise
access at current EL"
* for A32/T32, it should be "if EL2, UNPREDICTABLE; otherwise
access as if at EL0".
In both cases, i
