On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 13:23:58 +0100, Laurent Desnogues wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:51 PM Leif Lindholm <l...@nuviainc.com> wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <l...@nuviainc.com> > > --- > > target/arm/cpu.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h > > index fadd1a47df..90ba707b64 100644 > > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h > > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h > > @@ -1736,6 +1736,30 @@ FIELD(V7M_FPCCR, ASPEN, 31, 1) > > /* > > * System register ID fields. > > */ > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE1, 0, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE2, 3, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE3, 6, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE4, 9, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE5, 12, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE6, 15, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE7, 18, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, LOUIS, 21, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, LOC, 24, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, LOUU, 27, 3) > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, ICB, 30, 3) > > + > > +FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, LINESIZE, 0, 3) > > +FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, ASSOCIATIVITY, 3, 21) > > +FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, NUMSETS, 32, 24) > > The positions and sizes of the ASSOCIATIVITY and NUMSETS CCSIDR fields > depend on whether the ARMv8.3-CCIDX extension is implemented or not. > If we really want to define the fields this way, we perhaps should > define two sets. Or at the very least, add a comment stating this > definition is for ARMv8.3-CCIDX.
Urgh, sorry for this. I added the fields only to make the CPU definition more readable, so I think we don't need to worry about runtime handling of this? But I don't think it makes sense to add only the one form. Should I use CCIDX_CCSIDR_EL1 for these ones and add /* When FEAT_CCIDX is not implemented */ FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, LINESIZE, 0, 3) FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, ASSOCIATIVITY, 3, 10) FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, NUMSETS, 13, 15) with a comment that /* When FEAT_CCIDX is implemented */ for the former set ? > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0, IMINLINE, 0, 4) > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0, L1IP, 14, 2) > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0, DMINLINE, 16, 4) > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0, ERG, 20, 4) > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0, CWG, 24, 4) > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0, IDC, 28, 1) > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0, DIC, 29, 1) > > There's a missing field: TminLine which starts at bit 32. Ack, oops. > If > implemented, that would require to make ctr a 64-bit integer. As far as I can tell, this will be safe with existing code - should I fold in a patch extending the register? Regards, Leif > Thanks, > > Laurent > > > + > > FIELD(MIDR_EL1, REVISION, 0, 4) > > FIELD(MIDR_EL1, PARTNUM, 4, 12) > > FIELD(MIDR_EL1, ARCHITECTURE, 16, 4) > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > > >