在 2020/8/7 上午4:51, Peter Maydell 写道:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 21:31, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/6/20 8:01 PM, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
在 2020/8/6 下午8:26, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 写道:
We only implement the Index[Store/Load]Tag from the 'cache' opcode.
Instead of ignoring the other cache operations, report them as
unimplemented.
Hmm, I don't think we have anything to do with Invalidate/Writeback etc.
opcodes
in QEMU. Why do we log this?
I'm noticed this code is run on Linux 3.3.8 (4KEc):
8880: 3082000f andi v0,a0,0xf
8884: 10800008 beqz a0,88a8
8888: 00a21021 addu v0,a1,v0
888c: 08002227 j 889c
8890: 00001821 move v1,zero
8894: bcf90000 cache 0x19,0(a3)
8898: 24630010 addiu v1,v1,16
889c: 0062302b sltu a2,v1,v0
88a0: 14c0fffc bnez a2,8894
88a4: 00833821 addu a3,a0,v1
88a8: 03e00008 jr ra
88ac: 00000000 nop
Why silently ignore the opcode is not implemented instead of logging it?
I think the question is whether the opcode is supposed to have
some behaviour which we're not implementing, or whether "no-op"
is the correct behaviour for it (which it usually is for
cache invalidate type operations; compare the way the Arm
cache ops like IC_IALLU are just ARM_CP_NOP ops).
Probably we should skip Inv & WB opcode and log other undefined ops?
Otherwise the log may be flushed by Cache ops.
Thanks.
- Jiaxun
thanks
-- PMM