On 12/18/20 12:37 AM, remi.denis.courm...@huawei.com wrote:
> @@ -3586,10 +3586,10 @@ static void ats_write(CPUARMState *env, const
> ARMCPRegInfo *ri, uint64_t value)
> /* fall through */
> case 1:
> if (ri->crm == 9 && (env->uncached_cpsr & CPSR_PAN)) {
> - mmu_idx = (secure ? ARMMMUIdx_SE10_1_PAN
> + mmu_idx = (secure ? ARMMMUIdx_Stage1_SE1_PAN
> : ARMMMUIdx_Stage1_E1_PAN);
> } else {
> - mmu_idx = secure ? ARMMMUIdx_SE10_1 : ARMMMUIdx_Stage1_E1;
> + mmu_idx = secure ? ARMMMUIdx_Stage1_SE1 :
> ARMMMUIdx_Stage1_E1;
> }
> break;
Was this a bug that we weren't treating SE10 properly vs two-stage lookup? If
so, it warrants mentioning in the patch description.
r~
