On 6 March 2018 at 16:43, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/18 16:26, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> +/* For KVM currently all guest registers are nonsecure, but we reserve a bit
>> + * in the encoding to distinguish secure from nonsecure for banked
>> + */
> * This is the canonical comment style.
> It might be worth pointing out in the comment that this only applies to
> AArch32 system registers that are banked by security.
Sure. How about
* For KVM currently all guest registers are nonsecure, but we reserve a bit
* in the encoding to distinguish secure from nonsecure for AArch32 system
* registers that are banked by security. This is 1 for the secure banked
* register, and 0 for the nonsecure banked register or if the register is
* not banked by security.
>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_SECURE_MASK 0x0000000010000000
>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_SECURE_SHIFT 28
>> #define ARM_CP15_REG_SHIFT_MASK(x,n) \
>> (((x) << KVM_REG_ARM_ ## n ## _SHIFT) & KVM_REG_ARM_ ## n ## _MASK)
> Don't you also need to define it on the arm64 side?
I don't think so, because AArch64 registers aren't security banked
(except for some GICv3 ones, which aren't set via GET/SET_ONE_REG.)
Or is there a case I'm missing?
kvmarm mailing list