On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 15:32, Aaron Lindsay <aa...@os.amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 05 08:43, Aaron Lindsay wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lindsay <aa...@os.amperecomputing.com>
> > ---
> > target/arm/cpu.h | 4 ++--
> > target/arm/helper.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h
> > index 304e6e47b3..4216fe22db 100644
> > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h
> > @@ -837,8 +837,8 @@ struct ARMCPU {
> > uint32_t id_pfr0;
> > uint32_t id_pfr1;
> > uint32_t id_dfr0;
> > - uint32_t pmceid0;
> > - uint32_t pmceid1;
> > + uint64_t pmceid0;
> > + uint64_t pmceid1;
> > uint32_t id_afr0;
> > uint32_t id_mmfr0;
> > uint32_t id_mmfr1;
> > diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
> > index 71be6fb578..fb6939e99c 100644
> > --- a/target/arm/helper.c
> > +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
> > @@ -5256,6 +5256,20 @@ void register_cp_regs_for_features(ARMCPU *cpu)
> > } else {
> > define_arm_cp_regs(cpu, not_v7_cp_reginfo);
> > }
> > + if (FIELD_EX32(cpu->id_dfr0, ID_DFR0, PERFMON) >= 4) {
>
> After further discussion on my last version, this should be
>
> if (FIELD_EX32(cpu->id_dfr0, ID_DFR0, PERFMON) >= 4 &&
> FIELD_EX32(cpu->id_dfr0, ID_DFR0, PERFMON) != 0xf) {
>
> to guard against defining these registers for implementation-defined
> PMUs.
With that change
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
thanks
-- PMM
