From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53729) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gDFHZ-0007rb-8H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:52:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gDFHW-0005oC-1q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:52:37 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x542.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::542]:39901) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gDFHV-0005ir-Bb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:52:33 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-x542.google.com with SMTP id r9-v6so14744219pgv.6 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:52:27 -0700 (PDT) References: <20181018182758.18646-1-richard.henderson@linaro.org> <20181018182758.18646-4-richard.henderson@linaro.org> <20181018202719.GG12691@quinoa.localdomain> From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <4b0c801d-e119-75ab-01ae-85dc1cbba705@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:52:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181018202719.GG12691@quinoa.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] target/arm: Flush only the TLBs affected by TTBR*_EL1 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aaron Lindsay Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "peter.maydell@linaro.org" On 10/18/18 1:27 PM, Aaron Lindsay wrote: > On Oct 18 11:27, Richard Henderson wrote: >> @@ -2761,12 +2763,12 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo vmsa_cp_reginfo[] = { >> .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.esr_el[1]), .resetvalue = 0, }, >> { .name = "TTBR0_EL1", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_BOTH, >> .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 0, .crn = 2, .crm = 0, .opc2 = 0, >> - .access = PL1_RW, .writefn = vmsa_ttbr_write, .resetvalue = 0, >> + .access = PL1_RW, .writefn = vmsa_ttbr1_write, .resetvalue = 0, > > It's a little confusing that vmsa_ttbr1_write is used for TTBR0_EL1. Is > the '1' indicating the EL instead of which TTBR is being used? Yes. Perhaps I should have included "_el" in the symbol for clarity. I expect to add a different function (vmsr_ttbr_el2_write?), for TTBR{0,1}_EL2, which will also check HCR_EL2.E2H, when I get around to implementing ARMv8.1-VHE. r~