On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:12 AM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 10:57:17 PST (-0800), alistai...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Good catch!
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis
>
> Ya, thanks -- that's a somewhat embarrassing bug, as someone else just fixed
> one on the line below :).
On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 10:57:17 PST (-0800), alistai...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:20 PM Luke Nelson wrote:
pmpcfg_csr_{read,write} do not correctly handle accesses to PMP
configurations 8 through 15 (CSR pmpcfg2) on RV64.
The current code computes the pmpcfg index using:
(reg
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:20 PM Luke Nelson wrote:
>
> pmpcfg_csr_{read,write} do not correctly handle accesses to PMP
> configurations 8 through 15 (CSR pmpcfg2) on RV64.
>
> The current code computes the pmpcfg index using:
>
> (reg_index * sizeof(target_ulong))
>
> This is incorrect on RV64.
pmpcfg_csr_{read,write} do not correctly handle accesses to PMP
configurations 8 through 15 (CSR pmpcfg2) on RV64.
The current code computes the pmpcfg index using:
(reg_index * sizeof(target_ulong))
This is incorrect on RV64. For example, when reg_index is 2 (i.e.,
pmpcfg2), the computed con
