Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 05/22] target-arm: Add arm_el_to_mmu_idx()

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

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:24:42PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 07:08, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
> >
> > Maps a given EL to the corresponding MMU index.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
> > ---
> >  target-arm/cpu.h           | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  target-arm/translate-a64.c |  8 ++------
> >  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.h b/target-arm/cpu.h
> > index ff86250..938f389 100644
> > --- a/target-arm/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h
> > @@ -1086,9 +1086,28 @@ static inline CPUARMState *cpu_init(const char *cpu_model)
> >  #define MMU_MODE0_SUFFIX _kernel
> >  #define MMU_MODE1_SUFFIX _user
> >  #define MMU_USER_IDX 1
> > +static inline int arm_el_to_mmu_idx(int current_el)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> > +    return MMU_USER_IDX;
> > +#else
> > +    switch (current_el) {
> > +    case 0:
> > +        return MMU_USER_IDX;
> > +    case 1:
> > +        return 0;
> > +    default:
> > +        /* Unsupported EL.  */
> > +        assert(0);
> > +        return 0;
> > +    }
> > +#endif
> 
> Can we just make the EL and the MMU index the same thing,
> or is secure-vs-nonsecure going to need its own MMU
> indexes anyway?

Right, I did the conversion to 1:1 mapping at an early stage
but avoided it as we will need an indirect mapping for
Secure EL0/1 anyway.

I still have the patches around but they will conflict with the other
trustzone patches on the list so I'd rather avoid them for now.

Thanks,
Edgar