From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50195)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alex.bennee@linaro.org>) id 1Ws5bG-0008Pf-4f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:27:12 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alex.bennee@linaro.org>) id 1Ws5bA-0004uK-0g
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:27:06 -0400
Received: from static.88-198-71-155.clients.your-server.de
	([88.198.71.155]:51776 helo=socrates.bennee.com)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alex.bennee@linaro.org>) id 1Ws5b9-0004uB-QS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:26:59 -0400
From: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
References: <1401434911-26992-1-git-send-email-edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
	<1401434911-26992-14-git-send-email-edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
	<87d2eqs2ay.fsf@linaro.org> <20140604070157.GG3378@toto>
In-reply-to: <20140604070157.GG3378@toto>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 08:26:51 +0100
Message-ID: <8761khrv7o.fsf@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 13/16] target-arm: A64: Emulate the HVC
	insn
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, rob.herring@linaro.org, aggelerf@ethz.ch, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, blauwirbel@gmail.com, john.williams@xilinx.com, greg.bellows@linaro.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, rth@twiddle.net


Edgar E. Iglesias writes:

> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:41:25AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> 
>> Edgar E. Iglesias writes:
>> >  static inline void arm_log_exception(int idx)
>> > @@ -204,6 +205,11 @@ static inline uint32_t syn_aa64_svc(uint32_t imm16)
>> >      return (EC_AA64_SVC << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT) | ARM_EL_IL | (imm16 & 0xffff);
>> >  }
>> >  
>> > +static inline uint32_t syn_aa64_hvc(uint32_t imm16)
>> > +{
>> > +    return (EC_AA64_HVC << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT) | ARM_EL_IL | (imm16 & 0xffff);
>> > +}
>> 
>> The mask seems superfluous (as it is for arm_log_exception)
>
> Sorry, can you clarify what you mean here? Are you refering to the imm16?

Yes the imm16. It's the result of an extract32(..,..,16) so I can't see
how it wouldn't already be correctly masked.

-- 
Alex Bennée