From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48266) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1duN7O-0000vg-Fi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:19:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1duN7L-0002gw-6w for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:19:34 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]:54253) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1duN7K-0002fa-Vn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:19:31 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id q11so1109607ioe.10 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT) References: <1505240046-11454-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <1505240046-11454-8-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <712822df-6575-070a-a7fa-5ed9298ab2a7@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:19:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1505240046-11454-8-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 07/19] nvic: Implement NVIC_ITNS registers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: patches@linaro.org On 09/12/2017 01:13 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > For v8M, the NVIC has a new set of registers per interrupt, > NVIC_ITNS. These determine whether the interrupt targets Secure > or Non-secure state. Implement the register read/write code for > these, and make them cause NVIC_IABR, NVIC_ICER, NVIC_ISER, > NVIC_ICPR, NVIC_IPR and NVIC_ISPR to RAZ/WI for non-secure > accesses to fields corresponding to interrupts which are > configured to target secure state. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson > + s->itns[startvec + i] = value & (1 << i); It probably doesn't matter, since a functioning C99 compiler will do this transformation during conversion to bool, but (value >> i) & 1. r~