Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 02/22] target-arm: Make elr_el1 an array

["Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:19:36PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 8 May 2014 01:13, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 03:10:54PM +1000, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Edgar E. Iglesias
> >> <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
> >> >
> >> > No functional change.
> >> > Prepares for future additions of the EL2 and 3 versions of this reg.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  target-arm/cpu.h        | 3 ++-
> >> >  target-arm/helper-a64.c | 4 ++--
> >> >  target-arm/helper.c     | 3 ++-
> >> >  target-arm/kvm64.c      | 4 ++--
> >> >  target-arm/machine.c    | 2 +-
> >> >  target-arm/op_helper.c  | 6 +++---
> >> >  6 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
> >> > index c83f249..eb7a0f5 100644
> >> > --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
> >> > +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
> >> > @@ -162,7 +162,8 @@ typedef struct CPUARMState {
> >> >      uint32_t condexec_bits; /* IT bits.  cpsr[15:10,26:25].  */
> >> >      uint64_t daif; /* exception masks, in the bits they are in in PSTATE */
> >> >
> >> > -    uint64_t elr_el1; /* AArch64 ELR_EL1 */
> >> > +#define ELR_EL_IDX(x) (x - 1)
> >> > +    uint64_t elr_el[1]; /* AArch64 exception link regs  */
> >>
> >> Is it perhaps just easier to waste the space and always pad these
> >> EL-banked CP arrays out to length 4 you can just use literal numbers
> >> in the code? Probably make life easier when introspecting the CPU
> >> state in GDB too.
> >
> > Thanks Peter,
> >
> > I've fixed all your comments except this one. I considered this
> > pattern but avoided it due to the bloating of CPUARMState. Anyway,
> > I'm happy to change to this full array allocation if others agree.
> >
> > PMM, what is your preference on this?
> 
> I think I'd rather we just padded the array to length 4.

Sounds good, I'll change the pattern.

Cheers,
Edgar