Re: [PATCH 1/6] target/arm: Fault on invalid TCR_ELx.TxSZ

2022-01-11 Thread Peter Maydell
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 18:27, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 23:16, Richard Henderson > wrote: > > > > Without FEAT_LVA, the behaviour of programming an invalid value > > is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED. With FEAT_LVA, programming an invalid > > minimum value requires a Translation faul

Re: [PATCH 1/6] target/arm: Fault on invalid TCR_ELx.TxSZ

2022-01-06 Thread Peter Maydell
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 23:16, Richard Henderson wrote: > > Without FEAT_LVA, the behaviour of programming an invalid value > is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED. With FEAT_LVA, programming an invalid > minimum value requires a Translation fault. > > It is most self-consistent to choose to generate the fault

Re: [PATCH 1/6] target/arm: Fault on invalid TCR_ELx.TxSZ

2021-12-14 Thread Alex Bennée
Richard Henderson writes: > Without FEAT_LVA, the behaviour of programming an invalid value > is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED. With FEAT_LVA, programming an invalid > minimum value requires a Translation fault. > > It is most self-consistent to choose to generate the fault always. > > Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 1/6] target/arm: Fault on invalid TCR_ELx.TxSZ

2021-12-08 Thread Richard Henderson
Without FEAT_LVA, the behaviour of programming an invalid value is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED. With FEAT_LVA, programming an invalid minimum value requires a Translation fault. It is most self-consistent to choose to generate the fault always. Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson --- target/arm/helper