target/arm: Fix Secure PL1 tests in fp_exception_el

We were using arm_is_secure and is_a64, which are
tests against the current EL, as opposed to
arm_el_is_aa64 and arm_is_secure_below_el3, which
can be applied to a different EL than current.
Consolidate the two tests.

Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20220609202901.1177572-24-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 14 deletions

diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
index 2b2c1998fd..b95aa53474 100644
--- a/target/arm/helper.c
+++ b/target/arm/helper.c
@@ -10879,27 +10879,22 @@ int fp_exception_el(CPUARMState *env, int cur_el)
         int fpen = FIELD_EX64(env->cp15.cpacr_el1, CPACR_EL1, FPEN);
 
         switch (fpen) {
+        case 1:
+            if (cur_el != 0) {
+                break;
+            }
+            /* fall through */
         case 0:
         case 2:
-            if (cur_el == 0 || cur_el == 1) {
-                /* Trap to PL1, which might be EL1 or EL3 */
-                if (arm_is_secure(env) && !arm_el_is_aa64(env, 3)) {
-                    return 3;
-                }
-                return 1;
-            }
-            if (cur_el == 3 && !is_a64(env)) {
-                /* Secure PL1 running at EL3 */
+            /* Trap from Secure PL0 or PL1 to Secure PL1. */
+            if (!arm_el_is_aa64(env, 3)
+                && (cur_el == 3 || arm_is_secure_below_el3(env))) {
                 return 3;
             }
-            break;
-        case 1:
-            if (cur_el == 0) {
+            if (cur_el <= 1) {
                 return 1;
             }
             break;
-        case 3:
-            break;
         }
     }