On 22 June 2011 16:45, Jamie Iles <ja...@jamieiles.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Mostly what I'd like is for the actual code implementing things to >> be gated on a fairly fine-grained set of flags, so that we can confine >> the "what does this core have? what things imply what other things?" >> code to a single place where it's easy to tweak if we get it wrong. > > OK, I don't think I can object to that! I'll submit a patch to fix up > the v7 VMSA ap/remap dependency to be v6K rather than v7. Given that, > do you have any objection to adding 1167 as a v6K? I'm happy to help > with/test some of the feature cleanup.
I think the question is, if you mark the 1176 as a v6K then how do you gate the "working WFI from WFI instruction", which otherwise could reasonably be marked as one of the features implied by v6K? -- PMM
