From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37594)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>) id 1Zhk9l-0002yC-AD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:08:46 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>) id 1Zhk9i-0000h4-2C
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:08:45 -0400
Received: from mail-bn1on0084.outbound.protection.outlook.com
	([157.56.110.84]:24992
	helo=na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>) id 1Zhk9h-0000gp-Ss
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:08:41 -0400
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:52:38 -0700
From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com>
Message-ID: <20151001195238.GH3214@toto>
References: <1442672127-26223-1-git-send-email-edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
	<1442672127-26223-4-git-send-email-edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA_thbqKpZMt7EPPe570RQ5c+Si_KNt1-T8UVeP17Y95iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151001184451.GB29416@toto>
	<CAFEAcA8fkL4UpVUKFoZn+qc1b1xkr8Yoyc+ygVBKvXwkqO-7bg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8fkL4UpVUKFoZn+qc1b1xkr8Yoyc+ygVBKvXwkqO-7bg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/8] target-arm: Add support for S2
 page-table protection bits
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>, Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:48:17PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 1 October 2015 at 19:44, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> This isn't right -- the XN bit controls executability and the
> >> S2AP bits don't affect it at all. I think you want:
> >>
> >>     int prot_rw = 0;
> >>     if (s2ap & 1) {
> >>         prot_rw |= PAGE_READ;
> >>     }
> >>     if (s2ap & 2) {
> >>         prot_rw |= PAGE_WRITE;
> >>     }
> >>     if (!xn) {
> >>         prot_rw |= PAGE_EXEC;
> >>     }
> >
> >
> > Thanks, this was the stuff I was worried about when we talked about it
> > last time. I've got the following now which seems to be the same as
> > you suggest:
> >
> > static int get_S2prot(CPUARMState *env, int s2ap, int xn)
> > {
> >     int prot;
> >
> >     prot = s2ap & 1 ? PAGE_READ : 0;
> >     prot |= s2ap & 2 ? PAGE_WRITE : 0;
> >     if (!xn) {
> >         prot |= PAGE_EXEC;
> >     }
> >     return prot;
> > }
> 
> Yep, that's the right logic, though it seems a bit odd not
> to consistently use either 'if' or '?:' for all 3 bits.

OK, that's true, I'll change it to all ifs.

Thanks,
Edgar