On Fri, 27 May 2022 at 19:07, Richard Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > We don't need to constrain the value set in zcr_el[1], > because it will be done by sve_zcr_len_for_el. > > Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]> > --- > target/arm/cpu.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c > index d2bd74c2ed..0621944167 100644 > --- a/target/arm/cpu.c > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.c > @@ -208,8 +208,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_reset(DeviceState *dev) > CPACR_EL1, ZEN, 3); > /* with reasonable vector length */ > if (cpu_isar_feature(aa64_sve, cpu)) { > - env->vfp.zcr_el[1] = > - aarch64_sve_zcr_get_valid_len(cpu, cpu->sve_default_vq - 1); > + env->vfp.zcr_el[1] = cpu->sve_default_vq - 1; > }
I'm still not a fan of the zcr_el[] value not actually being a valid one. I'd rather we constrained it when we write the value into the field. thanks -- PMM
