On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:40:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 07:08, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> > target-arm/cpu.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
> > index 34e8f7c..88dfdcb 100644
> > --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
> > @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ typedef struct CPUARMState {
> > uint32_t c9_pminten; /* perf monitor interrupt enables */
> > uint64_t mair_el1;
> > #define VBAR_EL_IDX(x) (x - 1)
> > - uint64_t vbar_el[1]; /* vector base address register */
> > + uint64_t vbar_el[3]; /* vector base address register */
> > uint32_t c13_fcse; /* FCSE PID. */
> > uint64_t contextidr_el1; /* Context ID. */
> > uint64_t tpidr_el0; /* User RW Thread register. */
> > --
> > 1.8.3.2
>
> You should just fold this into whichever patch causes us to
> start actually accessing vbar_el[] for other ELs.
Agreed, will squash them.
Thanks,
Edgar
