On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 4 December 2013 12:33, Fedorov Sergey <s.fedo...@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/04/2013 03:18 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> >>> On 4 December 2013 10:58, Peter Crosthwaite >>> <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> So what im proposing is just a slightly more general patch. Is it >>>> really any more complicated than just applying your change pattern for >>>> the hyp mode? >>> >>> I think it would be, because of the wrinkle that hyp mode doesn't >>> have a banked LR, so the existing "assume we can just translate >>> the mode into a single index good for both LR and SP" logic >>> would break. >>> >>> The minimal change if we wanted to keep VMSD bumps to a >>> minimum would be to increase the size of the banked_spsr[] >>> and banked_r13[] arrays to allow for Hyp mode but do nothing >>> else (except add a comment about it I guess). >> >> >> If we want to bump VMSD just once for monitor + hypervisor mode then we need >> to add ELR_hyp register definition too. I think then it would be better to >> implement hypervisor mode and its special banking scheme, too. But I doubt >> it worth to combine these two things into one patch. > > It's possible to add single new fields to the VMState without > requiring a compatibility break, by marking the new field as > "only present in version X or greater"; new elements on the > end of arrays are a little fiddlier. > > But yes, I think we should just not worry about possible future > Hyp mode now. Let's stick with your current patch. >
+1. Patch is good for the moment. > thanks > -- PMM >
