On 12/4/19 2:38 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> writes: > >> On 12/4/19 10:58 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> @@ -7437,13 +7437,10 @@ void define_one_arm_cp_reg_with_opaque(ARMCPU *cpu, >>>> mask = PL0_RW; >>>> break; >>>> case 4: >>>> + case 5: >>>> /* min_EL EL2 */ >>>> mask = PL2_RW; >>>> break; >>>> - case 5: >>>> - /* unallocated encoding, so not possible */ >>>> - assert(false); >>>> - break; >>> >>> This change is fine - I don't think we should have asserted here anyway. >>> But don't we generate an unallocated exception if the CPU is v8.0? >> >> This change is only for validation of the system registers themselves. It >> has >> nothing to do with the usage of system registers from the actual guest. > > So what is the mechanism that feeds back to the translator?
The existence of a structure in the hash table. > access_check_cp_reg only seems to care about XSCALE. I guess > cp_access_ok would trip if you weren't at EL2 but what if you are a v8.0 > at EL2? This is sanity-checking the structure as it goes into the hash table. The version check happens when creating the structure -- we don't create registers that exist only for v8+ if the cpu is a v7. r~
