On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 27 January 2015 at 17:57, Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Peter Maydell <
> peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> > wrote:
> >> +/* Return the exception level which controls this address translation
> >> regime */
> >> +static inline uint32_t regime_el(CPUARMState *env, ARMMMUIdx mmu_idx)
> >> +{
> >> + switch (mmu_idx) {
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S2NS:
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1E2:
> >> + return 2;
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1E3:
> >> + return 3;
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1SE0:
> >> + return arm_el_is_aa64(env, 3) ? 1 : 3;
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1SE1:
> >
> >
> > I think this should be handled the same way as S1SE0 as Secure EL1 maps
> to
> > EL3 when EL3 is AArch32.
>
> If EL3 is AArch32 then you'll never be using this MMU index.
> By definition the S1SE1 index is for code executing at
> Secure EL1, and there isn't any of that unless EL3 is 64 bit.
> (Secure EL1 doesn't "map to" anything, it just doesn't
> exist/have any code running in it.)
>
Ah yes and thanks for the pointer to the origin of mmu index I have now
connected where we prevent that index with this code.
>
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1NSE0:
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1NSE1:
> >> + return 1;
> >> + default:
> >> + g_assert_not_reached();
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/* Return the SCTLR value which controls this address translation
> regime
> >> */
> >> +static inline uint32_t regime_sctlr(CPUARMState *env, ARMMMUIdx
> mmu_idx)
> >> +{
> >> + return env->cp15.sctlr_el[regime_el(env, mmu_idx)];
> >
> >
> > Given the above regime_el(), for S1SE1, this would return the non-secure
> > SCTLR bank on a secure translation. Same below for TCR and all uses
> > thereafter.
>
> That's correct, because S1SE1 implies "secure EL1 under a 64 bit
> EL3", in which case there is no system register banking and
> both Secure and NonSecure use the same underlying register.
> Compare the way that A32_BANKED_CURRENT_REG_GET/SET always
> use the NS version if arm_el_is_aa64(env, 3).
>
> >> +static inline bool regime_is_user(CPUARMState *env, ARMMMUIdx mmu_idx)
> >> +{
> >> + switch (mmu_idx) {
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1SE0:
> >> + case ARMMMUIdx_S1NSE0:
> >
> >
> > The get_phys_addr path filters out ARMMMUIdx_S12NSE0 so calls to this
> > function in this context don't matter, but what if it is called outside
> this
> > context? How should it handle this index?
>
> g_assert_not_reached(), but it didn't seem worth cluttering
> the switch with a bunch of extra labels just to assert that
> they weren't reachable.
>
>
I see how it could clutter things, but given that the routine is generic
we probably should just like we do in regime_el().
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
