qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] target/arm: add descriptions of CLIDR_EL1, CCSIDR_EL1


From: Leif Lindholm
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] target/arm: add descriptions of CLIDR_EL1, CCSIDR_EL1, CTR_EL0 to cpu.h
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:10:31 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

Hi Laurent,

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:02:23 +0100, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> Hi Leif,
> 
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:49 PM Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 13:23:58 +0100, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:51 PM Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif@nuviainc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  target/arm/cpu.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h
> > > > index fadd1a47df..90ba707b64 100644
> > > > --- a/target/arm/cpu.h
> > > > +++ b/target/arm/cpu.h
> > > > @@ -1736,6 +1736,30 @@ FIELD(V7M_FPCCR, ASPEN, 31, 1)
> > > >  /*
> > > >   * System register ID fields.
> > > >   */
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE1, 0, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE2, 3, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE3, 6, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE4, 9, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE5, 12, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE6, 15, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, CTYPE7, 18, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, LOUIS, 21, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, LOC, 24, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, LOUU, 27, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CLIDR_EL1, ICB, 30, 3)
> > > > +
> > > > +FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, LINESIZE, 0, 3)
> > > > +FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, ASSOCIATIVITY, 3, 21)
> > > > +FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, NUMSETS, 32, 24)
> > >
> > > The positions and sizes of the ASSOCIATIVITY and NUMSETS CCSIDR fields
> > > depend on whether the ARMv8.3-CCIDX extension is implemented or not.
> > > If we really want to define the fields this way, we perhaps should
> > > define two sets.  Or at the very least, add a comment stating this
> > > definition is for ARMv8.3-CCIDX.
> >
> > Urgh, sorry for this.
> > I added the fields only to make the CPU definition more readable, so I
> > think we don't need to worry about runtime handling of this?
> > But I don't think it makes sense to add only the one form.
> > Should I use CCIDX_CCSIDR_EL1 for these ones and add
> >
> > /* When FEAT_CCIDX is not implemented */
> > FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, LINESIZE, 0, 3)
> > FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, ASSOCIATIVITY, 3, 10)
> > FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, NUMSETS, 13, 15)
> >
> > with a comment that
> > /* When FEAT_CCIDX is implemented */
> > for the former set
> > ?
> 
> Having both would be handy, but you need to have different names for
> the fields.

Different names for the same field?
I.e.
FIELD(CCIDX_CCSIDR_EL1, LINESIZE, 0, 3)
would need a different name for LINESIZE than
FIELD(CCSIDR_EL1, LINESIZE, 0, 3)
?

> For setting fields up in cpu{64}.c that'd be acceptable
> as you know if the CPU you define has ARMv8.3-CCIDX. In the rest of
> the code the use would be more complicated as you'd have to check for
> ARMv8.3-CCIDX before accessing fields.  But the use of those fields
> outside of cpu{64}.c would likely be extremely limited so I don't
> think that's an issue.

Yeah, QEMU itself currently doesn't look into the fields at all.

> > > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0,  IMINLINE, 0, 4)
> > > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0,  L1IP, 14, 2)
> > > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0,  DMINLINE, 16, 4)
> > > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0,  ERG, 20, 4)
> > > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0,  CWG, 24, 4)
> > > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0,  IDC, 28, 1)
> > > > +FIELD(CTR_EL0,  DIC, 29, 1)
> > >
> > > There's a missing field:  TminLine which starts at bit 32.
> >
> > Ack, oops.
> >
> > > If
> > > implemented, that would require to make ctr a 64-bit integer.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, this will be safe with existing code - should I
> > fold in a patch extending the register?
> 
> IMHO it'd be better to extend ctr to 64-bit.  But I'm not sure of the
> implications in the rest of the code.

Sorry, I was ambivalent in my message: I meant that (at a glance it
looked like) existing code should be fine with extending it to
64-bit. So I'll do that.

Best Regards,

Leif

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Laurent
> 
> > Regards,
> >
> > Leif
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Laurent
> > >
> > > > +
> > > >  FIELD(MIDR_EL1, REVISION, 0, 4)
> > > >  FIELD(MIDR_EL1, PARTNUM, 4, 12)
> > > >  FIELD(MIDR_EL1, ARCHITECTURE, 16, 4)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.20.1
> > > >
> > > >



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]