On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 00:01, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> We will need 2 bits to represent ARMSecurityState.
>
> Do not attempt to replace or widen secure, even though it
> logically overlaps the new field -- there are uses within
> e.g. hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c, which don't know anything
> specific about ARM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> ---
> include/exec/memattrs.h | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/exec/memattrs.h b/include/exec/memattrs.h
> index 9fb98bc1ef..d04170aa27 100644
> --- a/include/exec/memattrs.h
> +++ b/include/exec/memattrs.h
> @@ -29,10 +29,17 @@ typedef struct MemTxAttrs {
> * "didn't specify" if necessary.
> */
> unsigned int unspecified:1;
> - /* ARM/AMBA: TrustZone Secure access
> + /*
> + * ARM/AMBA: TrustZone Secure access
> * x86: System Management Mode access
> */
> unsigned int secure:1;
> + /*
> + * ARM: ArmSecuritySpace. This partially overlaps secure, but it is
> + * easier to have both fields to assist code that does not understand
> + * ARMv9 RME, or no specific knowledge of ARM at all (e.g. pflash).
> + */
> + unsigned int space:2;
> /* Memory access is usermode (unprivileged) */
> unsigned int user:1;
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
I guess we aren't so tight on bits in this struct as to
warrant keeping the extra RME info in a single bit (which
should in theory be possible).
thanks
-- PMM
