Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 18/21] target-arm: switch banked CP registers

[Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 07:27, Fedorov Sergey <s.fedorov@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Yes, this banking scheme makes state changing events quite heavy. But
>> maintaining the active copies allows to keep translation table walking code
>> untouched. I think there is a trade-off between state changing and
>> translation table walking overheads.
>
> We shouldn't be doing tlb walks that often that it makes a
> difference whether we do env->ttbr0 or env->ttbr0[env->ns] ...
>
>> I think the CP banking is the most fragile thing in this patch series and
>> this should become much better after review :)
>
> It would probably be a good idea to look at the v8 ARM ARM and
> figure out how banked-for-NS/S registers should fit in with the
> AArch64 vs AArch32 split.
> [if you don't have a copy, it's on the ARM website:
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ddi0487a.a_errata2/index.html
> you'll need to register an account on the website if you don't already
> have one but it's a fairly simple "fill in the form" automated process]
>
> Note in particular that:
>  * many of the current uint32_t fields in our CPU state struct are
>    likely to widen to uint64_t, so the AArch64 representation is
>    canonical, and the AArch32 register accessors access a part
>    of that state (typically the lower 32 bits)
>  * registers which are banked S/NS in AArch32 are not necessarily
>    banked in AArch64
>

Adding to that, are there any other reasons to bank a register other
than sec-extensions? It seems like what you have implemented here
is too sec specific for simply calling it "banked" (without further
clarification of what you are banking for).

Regards,
Peter

> AArch64 support is likely to land before your TrustZone stuff
> does so we need to make the two features work together cleanly.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>