On 20 May 2014 16:43, Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org> wrote: > My focus within Linaro is to add support for the security extension to qemu > for ARMv7. Given that we both started from Samsung's original patches our > code is fairly similar. However, it appears that your changes have also > incorporated some ARMv8 64-bit changes, which at this point is out of my > scope.
It shouldn't be out of scope in a general sense -- any design for supporting the security extensions must at least consider how the AArch64 security extensions would be supported, even if it does not actually implement all the detail. > I think we should wait for Peter to chime in on the approach as he had > expressed interest in the more explicit registration approach that you have > presented. I threw my approach out there simply for consideration as I > thought it addressed his goal for maintaining ARMv7 features as the > "side-cases". To clarify, what I meant by that is that I'd in general prefer to see a design which implements AArch64 security as its primary thing with the v7 security extension support as the "this is what differs" part. (This is just a "seems like the obvious way to approach the problem" guideline rather than a "must be this way" rule, though; I haven't yet thought about the problem in sufficient depth.) > Depending on what Peter and the qemu community believes is best, it sounds > like we have two possible outcomes. > > Go entirely with your changes as they are similar to mine plus some > additional changes for 64-bit. > Go with my changes as a base incorporating some of your additions. If we want to take the "put all the reginfo for a register in one place" approach it sounds like it might be best to start with Fabian's patches and incorporate specific fixes/improvements from your tree into those as appropriate. thanks -- PMM
