On 22 June 2011 16:45, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Mostly what I'd like is for the actual code implementing things to
>> be gated on a fairly fine-grained set of flags, so that we can confine
>> the "what does this core have? what things im
On 22 June 2011 17:16, Jamie Iles wrote:
> The ARM1176 technically is a v6K core, but the actual definition of v6K
> seems a bit vague on required features.
>
> As wfi is a valid encoding on 1176 I personally don't see this as being
> a blocking issue (though technically incorrect, though most cod
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:01:30PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 22 June 2011 16:45, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> Mostly what I'd like is for the actual code implementing things to
> >> be gated on a fairly fine-grained set of flags,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:40:12AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 22 June 2011 00:42, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On 21 June 2011 23:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> Ah yes, sorry, I misread the TRM there. So it does have those, it's
> >> just the SEV/WFI/WFE it is missing. I guess we'll want an
> >> AR
On 22 June 2011 00:42, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On 21 June 2011 23:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Ah yes, sorry, I misread the TRM there. So it does have those, it's
>> just the SEV/WFI/WFE it is missing. I guess we'll want an
>> ARM_FEATURE_VAPA too.
>
> Could we perhaps infer and detect some of these f
On 21 June 2011 23:13, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 June 2011 17:13, Jamie Iles wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 21 June 2011 13:55, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>> > + case ARM_CPUID_ARM1176:
>>> > + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V4T
On 21 June 2011 17:13, Jamie Iles wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 21 June 2011 13:55, Jamie Iles wrote:
>> > + case ARM_CPUID_ARM1176:
>> > + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V4T);
>> > + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V5);
>>
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 04:43:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 June 2011 13:55, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > + case ARM_CPUID_ARM1176:
> > + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V4T);
> > + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V5);
> > + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V6);
> > +
On 21 June 2011 13:55, Jamie Iles wrote:
> + case ARM_CPUID_ARM1176:
> + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V4T);
> + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V5);
> + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V6);
> + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_V6K);
> + set_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_AUXC
Add support for the ARM1176JZ-s cores. The ARM1176JZ-s is a v6K core
but uses the v7 VMSA for remapping and access permissions and there is
no way to identify these VMSA extensions from the cpuid feature
registers.
Cc: Paul Brook
Cc: Aurelien Jarno
Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles
---
target-arm/cpu
10 matches
Mail list logo
