On 03/15/2018 10:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> If the GIC has the security extension support enabled, then a
> non-secure access to ICC_PMR must take account of the non-secure
> view of interrupt priorities, where real priorities 0..0x7f
> are secure-only and not visible to the non-secure guest, an
On 22 March 2018 at 14:23, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:34:41PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> If the GIC has the security extension support enabled, then a
>> non-secure access to ICC_PMR must take account of the non-secure
>> view of interrupt priorities, where real prioritie
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:34:41PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> If the GIC has the security extension support enabled, then a
> non-secure access to ICC_PMR must take account of the non-secure
> view of interrupt priorities, where real priorities 0..0x7f
> are secure-only and not visible to the no
Ping for code review -- it would be nice to put this bugfix
into rc1.
thanks
-- PMM
On 15 March 2018 at 13:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
> If the GIC has the security extension support enabled, then a
> non-secure access to ICC_PMR must take account of the non-secure
> view of interrupt priorities, w
If the GIC has the security extension support enabled, then a
non-secure access to ICC_PMR must take account of the non-secure
view of interrupt priorities, where real priorities 0..0x7f
are secure-only and not visible to the non-secure guest, and
priorities 0x80..0xff are shown to the guest as if
