On 9/3/21 1:24 pm, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> I was working under the impression that I didn't need it since RTEMS uses a
> flat
> memory model. I'll be spending some time tomorrow seeing what it will take to
> enable usage of the "normal" memory model via a configured MMU.
Most architectures with
day, March 8, 2021 20:08
To: Kinsey Moore
Cc: devel@rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] spec/aarch64: Force strict alignment for ZynqMP
On 9/3/21 10:40 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> So after a little more diving into this, I have found why --strict-align is
> required.
> If the MMU is d
On 9/3/21 10:40 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> So after a little more diving into this, I have found why --strict-align is
> required.
> If the MMU is disabled, all memory is treated as device memory which requires
> strictly aligned accesses.
I think I have missed something or not understanding the
:12
To: Sebastian Huber ; devel@rtems.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 7/7] spec/aarch64: Force strict alignment for ZynqMP
Hi Sebastian,
For AArch64, that would be SCTLR_EL1.A (bit 1). Even with that alignment
checking disabled, I still see data aborts on misaligned accesses. The MMU is
disabled during
-
From: Sebastian Huber
Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 23:54
To: Kinsey Moore ; devel@rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 7/7] spec/aarch64: Force strict alignment for ZynqMP
On 04/03/2021 23:15, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> Real hardware running AArch64 does not appreciate accesses misalig
On 04/03/2021 23:15, Kinsey Moore wrote:
Real hardware running AArch64 does not appreciate accesses misaligned
relative to the data size. This prevents generation of misaligned writes
which would throw exceptions.
The patch set is fine independent of the following comment.
To me this problem
