On 26 October 2014 22:30, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > In fact, since all of the "exception is not taken" cases are for > "we are in secure EL3 and the exception is not being routed to > secure EL3" you could just make all those entries read "1" and > rely on the "target_el < current_el" check. That does slightly > harm readability though.
Thinking further about this I actually prefer it -- it completely separates routing from masking. So you should make those entries read '1' and then just use -1 for "not possible" (and assert that the table lookup never gives you -1). > I looked through the tables for the AArch32 routing, and I can't > see anywhere where they're different from the AArch64 routing > handling. [...] Did I miss something? I did! If EL3 is AArch32 and the SCR.FIQ etc bits are clear then the FIQ/IRQ in the secure world target EL3, not EL1 (since the latter doesn't exist). We can handle that by using the AArch64 table anyway and just having a bit at the end that says "if we're secure and target_el is 1 then set it to 3", or if you prefer with a second table. -- PMM
