On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:53:54AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Fair enough, but if we grow a different EC for ESR_EL1 that uses encoding
> 0x09, this all falls apart.
We haven't had overlapping encodings so far, and if we did, we'd want to
apply some policy to all of these definitions, no?
> At the very list, maybe we should comment those that are EL2 or higher
> with /* EL2 and above */ or just fix the misnomer and drop the useless
> _ELx_ part of the names completely.
A comment sounds fine to me.
I'm not sure that s/_ELx// buys us any clarity, though; I don't think
that ESR_EC_PAC is clearly more constrained than ESR_ELx_EC_PAC.
Thanks,
Mark.
