On 03/13/2012 07:14 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> This change seems to drop the MCRR block cache op handling and I don't
>> see anything elsewhere which implements it. This will presumably break
>> some CPU/guest combination.
>
> Do you have any pointer on that exactly did we try to emulate he
On 13 March 2012 15:27, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> There is B3.15.1 block in the ARM ARM, it says that there were no 64-bit
> access to system registers before LPAE and Generic Timer. Do you mean that
> some 64-bit system registers were defined for specific CPUs?
Yes (for instance, see the 1136
On 13 March 2012 14:51, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> On 03/13/2012 06:21 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> On 13 March 2012 11:19, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> Minimal ARM LPAE support. Sufficient to boot Linux kernel on vexpress-a15
>>
>> This is missing chunks of what LPAE ought to mean, whi
On 03/13/2012 06:21 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 13 March 2012 11:19, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
Minimal ARM LPAE support. Sufficient to boot Linux kernel on vexpress-a15
This is missing chunks of what LPAE ought to mean, which is dubious,
and it doesn't state clearly what it is missing, which
On 13 March 2012 11:19, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> Minimal ARM LPAE support. Sufficient to boot Linux kernel on vexpress-a15
This is missing chunks of what LPAE ought to mean, which is dubious,
and it doesn't state clearly what it is missing, which is definitely
a problem.
> +void HELPER(set_c
On 03/13/2012 06:19 AM, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
The entire patch repeatedly fails scripts/checkpatch. More comments
below.
--Mark Langsdorf
Calxeda, Inc.
> Minimal ARM LPAE support. Sufficient to boot Linux kernel on vexpress-a15
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy
> ---
> target-arm/c
Minimal ARM LPAE support. Sufficient to boot Linux kernel on vexpress-a15
Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy
---
target-arm/cpu.h | 11 +-
target-arm/helper.c| 239
target-arm/helper.h|2
target-arm/machine.c | 16 +--
ta
