On 19 December 2013 14:26, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 19 December 2013 13:49, Peter Crosthwaite
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Peter Maydell
>>> wrote:
My initial thought would be either to have if statements a
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 13:49, Peter Crosthwaite
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> My initial thought would be either to have if statements at the
>>> relevant points (which is how we've handled 11mpcore
On 19 December 2013 13:49, Peter Crosthwaite
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> My initial thought would be either to have if statements at the
>> relevant points (which is how we've handled 11mpcore
>> differences so far), or to bite the bullet and reflect the
>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 05:49, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:43:54PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> The other possibility is that it's a correct implementation
>>> of 11MPCore GIC semantics -- the documentation of the
On 19 December 2013 05:49, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:43:54PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> The other possibility is that it's a correct implementation
>> of 11MPCore GIC semantics -- the documentation of the
>> 11MPCore definitely says that level triggered interrupts
>>
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 05:43:54PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 November 2013 16:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 19 November 2013 06:18, Christoffer Dall
> > wrote:
> > So I think this is a correct change in the sense that
> > it's fixing the behaviour of this function. However
> > we see
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 04:17:43PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 November 2013 06:18, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
> > For some reason only edge-triggered or enabled level-triggered
> > interrupts would set the pending state of a raised IRQ. This is not in
> > compliance with the specs, which
On 28 November 2013 16:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 November 2013 06:18, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
> So I think this is a correct change in the sense that
> it's fixing the behaviour of this function. However
> we seem to get our pending behaviour for level triggered
> interrupts wrong in se
On 19 November 2013 06:18, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> For some reason only edge-triggered or enabled level-triggered
> interrupts would set the pending state of a raised IRQ. This is not in
> compliance with the specs, which indicate that the pending state is
> separate from the enabled state, whi
For some reason only edge-triggered or enabled level-triggered
interrupts would set the pending state of a raised IRQ. This is not in
compliance with the specs, which indicate that the pending state is
separate from the enabled state, which only controls if a pending
interrupt is actually forwarde
10 matches
Mail list logo
