On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 05:28:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 09:47:38AM +0100, Kristina Martsenko wrote:
> > +#define ESR_ELx_EC_PAC (0x09)
>
> Really minor nit: but shouldn't this be ESR_EL2_EC_PAC, since this trap
> can't occur at EL1 afaict?
It can also be taken to EL3 dependent on SCR_EL3.API.
We use ESR_ELx_EC_<foo> for other exceptions that can't be taken to EL1
(e.g. ESR_ELx_EC_SMC{32,64}), so I think it would be more consistent to
leave this as ESR_ELx_EC_PAC rather than ESR_EL2_EC_PAC.
Thanks,
Mark.
