On 22 March 2018 at 20:42, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 03/22/2018 03:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 22 March 2018 at 14:23, Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:34:41PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> If the GIC has the security extension support enabled, then a >>>> non-secure access to ICC_PMR must take account of the non-secure >>>> view of interrupt priorities, where real priorities 0..0x7f >>>> are secure-only and not visible to the non-secure guest, and >>>> priorities 0x80..0xff are shown to the guest as if they were >>>> 0x00..0xff. We had the logic here wrong: >>> >>> 0x00..0x7f >> >> I think 0x00..0xff is correct. > > I guess Andrew only suggested to correct the hex prefix in your comment: > - ... where real priorities 0..0x7f > + ... where real priorities 0x00..0x7f
Oh, right. Yes, can do that. I was confused by the suggested correction being directly under "0x00..0xff" in my commit message. thanks -- PMM
