On 11/28/14 11:43, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/28/14 11:38, Andrew Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:18:27AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> fw_cfg already supports exposure over MMIO (used in ppc/mac_newworld.c,
>>> ppc/mac_oldworld.c, sparc/sun4m.c); we can easily add it to the "virt"
>>> board.
>>>
>>> The mmio register block of fw_cfg is advertized in the device tree. As
>>> base address we pick 0x09020000, which conforms to the comment preceding
>>> "a15memmap": it falls in the miscellaneous device I/O range 128MB..256MB,
>>> and it is aligned at 64KB.
>>>
>>> fw_cfg automatically exports a number of files to the guest; for example,
>>> "bootorder" (see fw_cfg_machine_reset()).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/arm/virt.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
>>> index 314e55b..070bd34 100644
>>> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
>>> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
>>> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ enum {
>>> VIRT_UART,
>>> VIRT_MMIO,
>>> VIRT_RTC,
>>> + VIRT_FW_CFG,
>>> };
>>>
>>> typedef struct MemMapEntry {
>>> @@ -107,6 +108,7 @@ static const MemMapEntry a15memmap[] = {
>>> [VIRT_GIC_CPU] = { 0x08010000, 0x00010000 },
>>> [VIRT_UART] = { 0x09000000, 0x00001000 },
>>> [VIRT_RTC] = { 0x09010000, 0x00001000 },
>>> + [VIRT_FW_CFG] = { 0x09020000, FW_CFG_SIZE + FW_CFG_DATA_SIZE },
>>> [VIRT_MMIO] = { 0x0a000000, 0x00000200 },
>>> /* ...repeating for a total of NUM_VIRTIO_TRANSPORTS, each of that
>>> size */
>>> /* 0x10000000 .. 0x40000000 reserved for PCI */
>>> @@ -519,6 +521,23 @@ static void create_flash(const VirtBoardInfo *vbi)
>>> g_free(nodename);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void create_fw_cfg(const VirtBoardInfo *vbi)
>>> +{
>>> + hwaddr base = vbi->memmap[VIRT_FW_CFG].base;
>>> + char *nodename;
>>> +
>>> + fw_cfg_init(0, 0, base, base + FW_CFG_SIZE);
>>> +
>>> + nodename = g_strdup_printf("/fw-cfg@%" PRIx64, base);
>>> + qemu_fdt_add_subnode(vbi->fdt, nodename);
>>> + qemu_fdt_setprop_string(vbi->fdt, nodename,
>>> + "compatible", "fw-cfg,mmio");
>>> + qemu_fdt_setprop_sized_cells(vbi->fdt, nodename, "reg",
>>> + 2, base, 2, FW_CFG_SIZE,
>>> + 2, base + FW_CFG_SIZE, 2,
>>> FW_CFG_DATA_SIZE);
>>
>> Overkill suggestion alert, but how about defining something like
>>
>> #define FW_CFG_SIZE_ALIGNED \
>> MIN(QEMU_ALIGN_UP(FW_CFG_SIZE, FW_CFG_DATA_SIZE), \
>> QEMU_ALIGN_UP(FW_CFG_SIZE, 4))
>>
>> and then using that in your memmap size calculation and fw-cfg-data base
>> address calculation. The only reason I suggest this is because it's hard
>> to tell that fw-cfg-data's address will be naturally aligned without
>> hunting down the definition of FW_CFG_DATA_SIZE. And, if it were to change
>> (which it probably never will), then it may not be.
>
> Why does it need to be aligned?
>
> The selector register is aligned at a 64KB boundary (for independent,
> strict reasons).
>
> The data register is not aligned at all, and -- AFAICS -- it need not
> be, because it's 1 byte wide. (In fact the ARM-specific
> Mmio(Read|Write)XX functions in edk2 enforce natural alignment, and the
> above layout passes without problems.)
>
> The full register block is 3 bytes wide. Is that a problem?
Hm, I think I get it now. If FW_CFG_DATA_SIZE were to increase, then its
alignment would have to increase as well, and whatever alignment
FW_CFG_SIZE provides might not suffice. So, you'd calculate the natural
alignment, but wouldn't increase it beyond 4.
I do think this is a bit overkill :) but I can do it. Let's wait for
more review comments first.
Thanks!
Laszlo
