On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 07:05, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> This (newish) ARM pseudocode function is easier to work with
> than open-coded tests for HCR_E2H etc. Use of the function
> will be staged into the code base in parts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> ---
> target/arm/internals.h | 2 ++
> target/arm/helper.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
> +/*
> + * Corresponds to ARM pseudocode function ELIsInHost().
> + */
> +bool el_is_in_host(CPUARMState *env, int el)
> +{
> + uint64_t mask;
> + /*
> + * Since we only care about E2H and TGE, we can skip arm_hcr_el2_eff.
> + * Perform the simplest bit tests first, and validate EL2 afterward.
> + */
> + if (el & 1) {
> + return false; /* EL1 or EL3 */
> + }
> +
> + mask = el ? HCR_E2H : HCR_E2H | HCR_TGE;
> + if ((env->cp15.hcr_el2 & mask) != mask) {
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + /* TGE and/or E2H set: double check those bits are currently legal. */
> + return arm_is_el2_enabled(env) && arm_el_is_aa64(env, 2);
> +}
What about the HaveVirtHostExt() check ?
Otherwise, looks like it matches the pseudocode, but I'd
rather wait until we have some uses of the function before
I think too hard about it.
thanks
-- PMM
