From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753922AbdA3RnZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:43:25 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48210 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752568AbdA3RnX (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:43:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 10/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Emulate the EL1 phys timer
 register access
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
        Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <1485479100-4966-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
 <1485479100-4966-11-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
 <86lgtt98gs.fsf@arm.com>
 <CAHyh4xhgNYjpyaGz=UtFfC+smh6CVZgJ530WWmwwmpg=Bi799A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFEAcA8BfUQTrdpNtkkB2kh=dLyOCjuBv2vVWZML8px8D0JJ9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: KVM General <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
        lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Organization: ARM Ltd
Message-ID: <ba9de0f8-4b35-2bb8-cb4b-cc97434f5183@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:35:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Icedove/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8BfUQTrdpNtkkB2kh=dLyOCjuBv2vVWZML8px8D0JJ9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 30/01/17 17:26, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 January 2017 at 17:08, Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
>>> Shouldn't we take the ENABLE bit into account? The ARMv8 ARM version I
>>> have at hand (version h) seems to indicate that we should, but we should
>>> check with the latest and greatest...
>>
>> Thanks! I was not clear about this. I have ARM ARM version k, and it
>> says that 'When the value of the ENABLE bit is 0, the ISTATUS field is
>> UNKNOWN.' So I thought the istatus value doesn't matter if ENABLE is
>> 0, and just set istatus bit regardless of ENABLE bit. If this is not
>> what the manual meant, then I'm happy to fix this.
> 
> It looks like the spec has been relaxed between the doc version
> that Marc was looking at and the current one. So it's OK for
> an implementation to either (a) set ISTATUS to 0 if ENABLE
> is 0, or (b) do what you've done and set ISTATUS according
> to the timer comparison whether ENABLE is clear or not
> (or even (c) set ISTATUS to a random value if ENABLE is clear,
> and other less likely choices).
> I think we should add a comment to note that it's architecturally
> UNKNOWN and we've made a choice for our implementation convenience.

In that case, the proposed implementation is perfectly fine. I'll retire
the old ARMv8 ARM from my laptop (funnily enough, I didn't fancy
downloading version k while on the train and having my phone as my link
to the outside world... ;-).

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...