From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52448) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XJiPo-0006Og-TS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:21:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XJiPk-0004hB-3I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:21:28 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]:60695) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XJiPj-0004gy-Sb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:21:24 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id lf10so9724853pab.2 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 05:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:20:05 +1000 From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" Message-ID: <20140819122005.GC27221@zapo.iiNet> References: <1407500294-10804-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <1407500294-10804-10-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20140819095617.GG13728@toto> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/11] target-arm: Implement ARMv8 single-step handling for A64 code List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , David Long On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:46:23AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 19 August 2014 11:25, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 19 August 2014 10:56, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> --- a/target-arm/cpu.h > >>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.h > >>> @@ -1211,6 +1211,10 @@ static inline bool arm_singlestep_active(CPUARMState *env) > >>> #define ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_EL_MASK (0x3 << ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_EL_SHIFT) > >>> #define ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_FPEN_SHIFT 2 > >>> #define ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_FPEN_MASK (1 << ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_FPEN_SHIFT) > >>> +#define ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_SS_ACTIVE_SHIFT 3 > >>> +#define ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_SS_ACTIVE_MASK (1 << ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_SS_ACTIVE_SHIFT) > >>> +#define ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_PSTATE_SS_SHIFT 3 > >>> +#define ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_PSTATE_SS_MASK (1 << ARM_TBFLAG_AA64_PSTATE_SS_SHIFT) > >> > >> Shouldn't these shifts/masks differ? > > > > Oops. Yes, they certainly should. > > The fix is just a simple s/3/4/ for the PSTATE_SS_SHIFT > define. Does anybody want a retransmit of the series for > this one-liner? Hi, AFAICT, the rest of the series looks good, RB on all. Reviewed-by: Edgar E. Iglesias No need to repost for me. Cheers, Edgar