On 21/2/23 00:26, Richard Henderson wrote:
We will need 2 bits to represent ARMSecurityState.Do not attempt to replace or widen secure, even though it logically overlaps the new field -- there are uses within e.g. hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c, which don't know anything specific about ARM. Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> --- include/exec/memattrs.h | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/exec/memattrs.h b/include/exec/memattrs.h index 9fb98bc1ef..d04170aa27 100644 --- a/include/exec/memattrs.h +++ b/include/exec/memattrs.h @@ -29,10 +29,17 @@ typedef struct MemTxAttrs { * "didn't specify" if necessary. */ unsigned int unspecified:1; - /* ARM/AMBA: TrustZone Secure access + /* + * ARM/AMBA: TrustZone Secure access * x86: System Management Mode access */ unsigned int secure:1; + /* + * ARM: ArmSecuritySpace. This partially overlaps secure, but it is + * easier to have both fields to assist code that does not understand + * ARMv9 RME, or no specific knowledge of ARM at all (e.g. pflash). + */ + unsigned int space:2; /* Memory access is usermode (unprivileged) */ unsigned int user:1;
'secure' & 'user' seem mutually exclusive. If we get short in bits, they could be shared.
