On 17 March 2014 12:41, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 17 March 2014 03:28, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> + /* Set bit 26 for exceptions with no change in EL */ >>> + if (arm_current_pl(env)) { >>> + syn |= 1 << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT; >>> + } >>> + >> >> Perhaps in internals.h: >> >> #define ARM_EL_EC_SAME_LEVEL (1 << ARM_EL_EC_SHIFT) >> >> Then this becomes: >> >> syn |= ARM_EL_EC_SAME_LEVEL >> >> Then in internals.h you can be more self documenting with: >> >> EC_BREAKPOINT_SAME_EL = EC_BREAKPOINT | ARM_EL_EC_SAME_LEVEL > > Yeah, seems reasonable. On the other hand you can't define EC_BREAKPOINT_SAME_EL like that, because the EC_ enum values aren't shifted. Perhaps it would be better to have the syn_* functions for the EC values which have SAME_EL versions (currently just insn abort and data abort, since we don't implement any of the hardware debug exceptions) have an extra parameter bool same_el, and have the syn_ function OR in the extra bit. thanks -- PMM _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm