On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 9 February 2014 02:50, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> +typedef enum CPAccessResult {
>>> +/* Access is permitted */
>>> +CP_ACCESS_OK = 0,
>>> +/* Access fails due t
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Several of the system registers handled via the ARMCPRegInfo
> mechanism have access trap control bits controlling whether the
> registers are accessible to lower privilege levels. Replace
> the existing mechanism (allowing the read and write
On 9 February 2014 02:50, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> +typedef enum CPAccessResult {
>> +/* Access is permitted */
>> +CP_ACCESS_OK = 0,
>> +/* Access fails due to a configurable trap or enable which would
>> + * result in
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Several of the system registers handled via the ARMCPRegInfo
> mechanism have access trap control bits controlling whether the
> registers are accessible to lower privilege levels. Replace
> the existing mechanism (allowing the read and write
Several of the system registers handled via the ARMCPRegInfo
mechanism have access trap control bits controlling whether the
registers are accessible to lower privilege levels. Replace
the existing mechanism (allowing the read and write functions
to return EXCP_UDEF if access is denied) with a dedi
