Make the data of the *context registers 32 bits wide.

[rtwfroody]

Still todo, is figure out what to call XLEN there. In the introduction we mention what XLEN means for Debug and M-Mode, but some of these registers are accessible in other modes also.

[pdonahue-ventana]

I don't think that "those" makes sense anymore. If we're going to remove the MXLEN reference, shouldn't we also remove DXLEN since elsewhere it says that XLEN is DXLEN in debug mode?

Maybe: "In this section XLEN refers to the effective XLEN in the current execution mode. On systems where XLEN values can differ between modes, this is handled as follows."

[rtwfroody]

I kept DXLEN in there to just make it extra clear than when the hart is halted DXLEN applies. But you're right it's not necessary, and I guess it is odd to only mention that one and not any other modes. I'll simplify as you suggest.

[pdonahue-ventana]

Is this really 13:0 or 31:0? It's "recommended" to implement no more than 14 bits but that isn't a requirement. The required max seems like it used to be XLEN and is now 32.

[rtwfroody]

I wanted to change it to 14 bits because there is no value in implementing additional bits. None of our triggers look at bits higher than bit 13 in this register. Or did I miss something?

[pdonahue-ventana]

You're right. I forgot that the width of mhvalue basically makes it useless to have anything wider than 14 bits. I think that we should change the final sentence of the mcontext register's hcontext field to be:

If the H extension is implemented, it’s recommended to implement no more than 7 bits on RV32.

Because it would now be impossible to implement more than 14 on RV64.

[pdonahue-ventana]

Now I notice that this recommendation is confusing because it's not possible to implement more than 32 bits. We can just drop everything after the comma.

[rtwfroody]

I had read this as:

1. It's recommended to implement no more than 16 bits on RV32.
2. It's recommended to implement 32 bits on RV64.

But I agree it's ambiguous.

Maybe we should scrap the "no more" altogether, and just recommend 16 and 32? It's already clear that fewer are allowed.

E.g.

It's recommended to implement 16 bits on RV32, and 32 on RV64.

[pdonahue-ventana]

I'm OK with your proposal but I'd eliminate the comma and then maybe say "bits" to be more symmetric: "It's recommended to implement 16 bits on RV32 and 32 bits on RV64."

[pdonahue-ventana]

Suggested change

	0. It's recommended to implement 16 bits on RV32, and 32 bits on
	RV64.
	0. It's recommended to implement 16 bits on RV32 and 32 bits on
	RV64.

[rtwfroody]

Done.

[pdonahue-ventana]

Ship it!