On 13 May 2014 17:15, Fabian Aggeler <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Sergey Fedorov <[email protected]>
>
> TTBCR has additional fields PD0 and PD1 when using Short-descriptor
> translation table format on a CPU with Security Extension support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Aggeler <[email protected]>
> ---
> target-arm/helper.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
> index 7898f40..9c3269f 100644
> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> @@ -1388,6 +1388,11 @@ static void vmsa_ttbcr_raw_write(CPUARMState *env,
> const ARMCPRegInfo *ri,
>
> if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_LPAE) && (value & (1 << 31))) {
> value &= ~((7 << 19) | (3 << 14) | (0xf << 3));
> + } else if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_SECURITY_EXTENSIONS)) {
> + /* In an implementation that includes the Security Extensions
> + * TTBCR has additional fields PD0 [4] and PD1 [5].
> + */
For v8 the PD0/PD1 fields exist even without the security extensions.
> + value &= (1 << 5) | (1 << 4) | (1 << 2) | (1 << 1) | (1 << 0);
This is probably better written
value &= (3 << 4) | 7;
> } else {
> value &= 7;
> }
> --
> 1.8.3.2
We should probably actually implement the behaviour PD0/PD1
mandate, incidentally -- this shouldn't be hard. I might send a patch
out later...
thanks
-- PMM
