Peter Maydell writes: > On 24 July 2014 16:52, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >> +/* See: D4.7.2 TLB maintenance requirements and the TLB maintenance >> instructions >> + * Page D4-1736 (DDI0487A.b) "For TLB maintenance instructions that >> + * take an address, the maintenance of VA[63:56] is interpreted as >> + * being the same as the maintenance of VA[55]" >> + */ > > I'd rather we didn't quote this bit of the ARM ARM, because it's > obviously mangled (I'm pretty sure it should say "the value of > VA[..]").
Is it OK to still reference the ARM ARM because otherwise the sign extension would look a little weird without context (although obviously we have a commit message to say we fixed something). > > Otherwise > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > thanks > -- PMM -- Alex Bennée
