Hi,
On 6/27/19 12:46 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:56:54PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
>>> index f500ccb6d31b..b7b719dba57f 100644
>>> --- a/target/arm/helper.c
>>> +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
>>> @@ -5324,7 +5324,16 @@ static void zcr_write(CPUARMState *env, const
>>> ARMCPRegInfo *ri,
>>>
>>> /* Bits other than [3:0] are RAZ/WI. */
>>> QEMU_BUILD_BUG_ON(ARM_MAX_VQ > 16);
>>> - raw_write(env, ri, value & 0xf);
>>> + value &= 0xf;
>>> +
>>> + if (value) {
>>> + /* get next vq that is smaller than or equal to value's vq */
>>> + uint32_t vq = value + 1;
>>> + vq = arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(cpu, vq + 1);
>>> + value = vq - 1;
>> spec says:
>>
>> "if an unsupported vector length is requested in ZCR_ELx, the
>> implementation is required to select the largest
>> supported vector length that is less than the requested length. This
>> does not alter the value of ZCR_ELx.LEN.
>> "
>>
>> So I understand the value written in the reg should not be unmodified.
>>
>
> Sorry, I can't parse what you're trying to tell me here. Here we have
> to write 'value', because that's what the guest is trying to do. As the
> spec says in your quote, we have to pick the length the guest wants, or
> the next smaller valid one, so that's what the code above does. So are
> you just stating that you agree with this hunk of the code?
What we are writing into the reg is arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(cpu, vq
+ 1) -1. Maybe I misunderstand the whole wording but I would have
expected the original unmodified value to be written in the reg instead?
Thanks
Eric
>
> Thanks,
> drew
>
