On 27 October 2014 06:57, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> 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. > > Right, this is what I was saying about either needing another column or or table. If we are going with the table approach I think we should go all the way and not add a "conditional". Besides, the tables are small anyway. I extended the existing able to take 32/64 bit identifier. The changes discussed above will be made in v8. > -- PMM >
