On 6 November 2013 13:05, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > Well, to be honest, my primary motivation for posting it to the list > was so I could refer to it from the JIRA issue you told me about > yesterday, but I would be happy to fix these minor issues and do a > proper submission as well. However, considering that this is just a > minor slice of the crypto extensions, and that I should probably also > implement disassemble support (?) for a complete implementation, I did > not think the coverage of the patch would be sufficient for a proper > upstream submission. (I mainly wrote it to unblock my own work)
I don't have convenient access to the spec at the moment, so I couldn't check how much of the instructions this covered, but my general view is that we're adding the new-in-v8 instructions piecemeal, so provided the implementation of the instructions that the patch adds is reasonably complete I don't see the need to hold them up waiting for full coverage of every insn in the crypto extensions. > Thanks, I was wondering about that. Should there be another check? Not > all v8 cores will implement these extensions, so we might also want to > emulate one that doesn't, I suppose? Yes, that would probably be better, actually: add a new ARM_FEATURE_ bit and then make ARM_FEATURE_V8 imply that new bit in arm_cpu_realizefn(). thanks -- PMM _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
