[v1,06/16] target-arm: Add FAR_EL2 and 3

From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>

Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
---
 target-arm/cpu.h    | 2 +-
 target-arm/helper.c | 6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Edgar E. Iglesias writes:

> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
> ---
>  target-arm/cpu.h    | 2 +-
>  target-arm/helper.c | 6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
> index f8ca1da..ef6a95d 100644
> --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
> @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ typedef struct CPUARMState {
>          uint32_t ifsr_el2; /* Fault status registers.  */
>          uint64_t esr_el[4];
>          uint32_t c6_region[8]; /* MPU base/size registers.  */
> -        uint64_t far_el[2]; /* Fault address registers.  */
> +        uint64_t far_el[4]; /* Fault address registers.  */

Ahh my confusion from earlier is now clear. Perhaps the two commits
should be merged?

>          uint64_t par_el1;  /* Translation result. */
>          uint32_t c9_insn; /* Cache lockdown registers.  */
>          uint32_t c9_data;
> diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
> index da210b9..de5ee40 100644
> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> @@ -2120,6 +2120,9 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_el2_cp_reginfo[] = {
>        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
>        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 5, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 1,
>        .access = PL2_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.esr_el[2]) },
> +    { .name = "FAR_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> +      .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 6, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,
> +      .access = PL2_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.far_el[2]) },
>      { .name = "SPSR_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
>        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
>        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 4, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,
> @@ -2142,6 +2145,9 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_el3_cp_reginfo[] = {
>        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
>        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 5, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 1,
>        .access = PL3_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.esr_el[3]) },
> +    { .name = "FAR_EL3", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> +      .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 6, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,
> +      .access = PL3_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.far_el[3]) },
>      { .name = "SPSR_EL3", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
>        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
>        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 4, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:22:51AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> 
> Edgar E. Iglesias writes:
> 
> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> >  target-arm/cpu.h    | 2 +-
> >  target-arm/helper.c | 6 ++++++
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
> > index f8ca1da..ef6a95d 100644
> > --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
> > @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ typedef struct CPUARMState {
> >          uint32_t ifsr_el2; /* Fault status registers.  */
> >          uint64_t esr_el[4];
> >          uint32_t c6_region[8]; /* MPU base/size registers.  */
> > -        uint64_t far_el[2]; /* Fault address registers.  */
> > +        uint64_t far_el[4]; /* Fault address registers.  */
> 
> Ahh my confusion from earlier is now clear. Perhaps the two commits
> should be merged?


Hi,

The point is to have a non-functional diff and then incrementally add
the function to easy bisectability if something breaks. I don't
have a very strong opinion though, so if people insist I can squash.

Cheers,
Edgar

> 
> >          uint64_t par_el1;  /* Translation result. */
> >          uint32_t c9_insn; /* Cache lockdown registers.  */
> >          uint32_t c9_data;
> > diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
> > index da210b9..de5ee40 100644
> > --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> > +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> > @@ -2120,6 +2120,9 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_el2_cp_reginfo[] = {
> >        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> >        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 5, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 1,
> >        .access = PL2_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.esr_el[2]) },
> > +    { .name = "FAR_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> > +      .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 6, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,
> > +      .access = PL2_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.far_el[2]) },
> >      { .name = "SPSR_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> >        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> >        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 4, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,
> > @@ -2142,6 +2145,9 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_el3_cp_reginfo[] = {
> >        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> >        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 5, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 1,
> >        .access = PL3_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.esr_el[3]) },
> > +    { .name = "FAR_EL3", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> > +      .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 6, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,
> > +      .access = PL3_RW, .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.far_el[3]) },
> >      { .name = "SPSR_EL3", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> >        .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> >        .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 4, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0,
> 
> -- 
> Alex Bennée

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Alex Benn�e wrote:
> 
> Edgar E. Iglesias writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:22:51AM +0100, Alex Benn?e wrote:
> >> 
> >> Edgar E. Iglesias writes:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Ahh my confusion from earlier is now clear. Perhaps the two commits
> >> should be merged?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The point is to have a non-functional diff and then incrementally add
> > the function to easy bisectability if something breaks. I don't
> > have a very strong opinion though, so if people insist I can squash.
> 
> Having each commit point be buildable and testable is certainly a
> worthwhile goal from a bisect point of view. But for a simple no-op diff
> (i.e. functionaly identical, just moving a few bits around) which will
> then get updated with functional changes there is an argument to squash
> the two together.


I disagree. IMO when patches include refactoring + changes, the refactoring
should be done with non functional changes (as far as possible) and then
followed up with small easily reviewable functional patches.


> 
> I like this patch series because the individual patches are narrow in
> scope and not too big hence easier to review. I don't think squashing
> some of non-function + functional diffs together detracts from that
> nobel goal. As you say it's a judgement call.