Hi Ian,
On 16/04/2015 17:22, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 14:51 +0200, Julien Grall wrote:
On 31/03/2015 12:07, Ian Campbell wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com>
---
xen/arch/arm/traps.c | 52
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
index 8b1846a..ebc09f9 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/traps.c
@@ -1587,6 +1587,34 @@ static void handle_raz_wi(struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
advance_pc(regs, hsr);
}
+/* Write only + write ignore */
+static void handle_wo_wi(struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
+ register_t *reg,
This helper handles WO and WI which doesn't require to modify the register.
I would pass a register_t rather than register_t* in order to make clear
that the register of the guest won't change.
I deliberately made handle_* all have the same prototype for
consistency.
Ok.
+/* Read only + read as zero */
This comment may confuse developer who wants to implement RO register
which another value than 0.
I got confuse too. It would be nice to expand the comment for the RO case.
I'm afraid I don't understand the confusion so I'm not sure how to
clarify. What did you think this comment was saying?
When I read the comment I though you were implemented two distinct part:
RO and RAZ.
As the value return by RO may not always be 0 (we have a handful of
cases in traps.c), I didn't understand why you were implementing both
within the same helper.
Although this helper choose to implement RO as RAZ. So I think it would
be good to mention it in order to avoid confusion later.
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
