On 26 September 2014 00:06, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:01:11AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 25 September 2014 23:20, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:39:32PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >> HCR.TGE isn't actually relevant for some exceptions >> >> (eg SMC), and the HVC handling you have below >> >> effectively ends up ignoring the route_to_el2 >> >> information. That suggests to me that you should put >> >> this code in a default: case in the switch below. >> > >> > I don't really test nor support TGE so I'll just drop the TGE part. >> >> I'd rather we just implemented it properly... > > IMO, It's not about implementing it properly. It's about implementing the > EL3/2 support incrementally. The spec is too big to add all the features > at once.
Well, maybe. My point still stands that the code you have there to figure out route_to_el2 is not going to be implementable as a generic code fragment that doesn't care about the exception type, and so you should stick to having the code inside each switch case. -- PMM
