[PATCH for-8.0 v4 3/4] target/arm: Diagnose incorrect usage of arm_is_secure subroutines

[Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>]

In several places we use arm_is_secure_below_el3 and
arm_is_el3_or_mon separately from arm_is_secure.
These functions make no sense for m-profile, and
would indicate prior incorrect feature testing.

Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
---
 target/arm/cpu.h | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h
index 7a2f804aeb..cb4e405f04 100644
--- a/target/arm/cpu.h
+++ b/target/arm/cpu.h
@@ -2389,7 +2389,8 @@ static inline int arm_feature(CPUARMState *env, int feature)
 void arm_cpu_finalize_features(ARMCPU *cpu, Error **errp);
 
 #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
-/* Return true if exception levels below EL3 are in secure state,
+/*
+ * Return true if exception levels below EL3 are in secure state,
  * or would be following an exception return to that level.
  * Unlike arm_is_secure() (which is always a question about the
  * _current_ state of the CPU) this doesn't care about the current
@@ -2397,6 +2398,7 @@ void arm_cpu_finalize_features(ARMCPU *cpu, Error **errp);
  */
 static inline bool arm_is_secure_below_el3(CPUARMState *env)
 {
+    assert(!arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_M));
     if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_EL3)) {
         return !(env->cp15.scr_el3 & SCR_NS);
     } else {
@@ -2410,6 +2412,7 @@ static inline bool arm_is_secure_below_el3(CPUARMState *env)
 /* Return true if the CPU is AArch64 EL3 or AArch32 Mon */
 static inline bool arm_is_el3_or_mon(CPUARMState *env)
 {
+    assert(!arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_M));
     if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_EL3)) {
         if (is_a64(env) && extract32(env->pstate, 2, 2) == 3) {
             /* CPU currently in AArch64 state and EL3 */
-- 
2.34.1