On 14.06.2011, at 23:49, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 13.06.2011 um 15:31 schrieb Alexander Graf: > >> On 13.06.2011, at 12:13, Andreas Färber wrote: >> >>> + /* Memory forced */ >>> + ctx->raddr = ((sr & 0xF) << 28) | (eaddr & 0x0FFFFFFF); >> >> This is exactly the same as ctx->raddr = eaddr, no? > > No, not that I see. The manual is explicit about this calculation: > > "the processor [...] generates a memory access > with the physical address specified by the lowest-order four bits in the > segment register > (SR[28–31]) concatenated with LA4–LA31." (6-63 / 6.10.4) > > That matches figure 6-26 on the following page, and I've added a similar > comment in v2. > > I see no compelling reason why the lower nibble of the SR should always match > the SR#, the upper nibble of eaddr.
Ah, sr is not the segment register number, but the content of the segement register. Then it's ok :). Alex
