On 26 September 2014 00:06, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:01:11AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 25 September 2014 23:20, Edgar E. Iglesias
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:39:32PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> HCR.TGE isn't actually relevant for some exce
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 12:01:11AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 September 2014 23:20, Edgar E. Iglesias
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:39:32PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> HCR.TGE isn't actually relevant for some exceptions
> >> (eg SMC), and the HVC handling you have below
>
On 25 September 2014 23:20, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:39:32PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> HCR.TGE isn't actually relevant for some exceptions
>> (eg SMC), and the HVC handling you have below
>> effectively ends up ignoring the route_to_el2
>> information. That sugges
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 07:39:32PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 September 2014 05:29, Edgar E. Iglesias
> wrote:
>
> > --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> > +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> > @@ -3652,7 +3652,33 @@ void switch_mode(CPUARMState *env, int mode)
> > */
> > unsigned int arm_excp_target
On 13 September 2014 05:29, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> @@ -3652,7 +3652,33 @@ void switch_mode(CPUARMState *env, int mode)
> */
> unsigned int arm_excp_target_el(CPUState *cs, unsigned int excp_idx)
> {
> -return 1;
> +CPUARMStat
Reviewed-by: Greg Bellows
On 12 September 2014 21:29, Edgar E. Iglesias
wrote:
> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias"
>
> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias
> ---
> target-arm/cpu.h | 1 +
> target-arm/helper-a64.c| 1 +
> target-arm/helper.c| 28 +++-
> ta
From: "Edgar E. Iglesias"
Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias
---
target-arm/cpu.h | 1 +
target-arm/helper-a64.c| 1 +
target-arm/helper.c| 28 +++-
target-arm/helper.h| 1 +
target-arm/internals.h | 6 ++
target-arm/op_helper.c
