On 25.11.2017 14:49, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 07:19, Yi Min Zhao wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2017/11/23 下午8:18, Thomas Huth 写道:
>>> On 23.11.2017 13:07, Yi Min Zhao wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 在 2017/11/23 下午6:33, Cornelia Huck 写道:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:25:10 +0100
>>>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23.11.2017 11:08, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:01:23 +0100
>>>>>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23.11.2017 10:49, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:48:41 +0100
>>>>>>>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22.11.2017 23:05, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>> + * Swap data contained in s390x big endian registers to little
>>>>>>>>>>> endian
>>>>>>>>>>> + * PCI bars.
>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @ptr: a pointer to a uint64_t data field
>>>>>>>>>>> + * @len: the length of the valid data, must be 1,2,4 or 8
>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>> +static int zpci_endian_swap(uint64_t *ptr, uint8_t len)
>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>> + uint64_t data = *ptr;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + switch (len) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + case 1:
>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>>>> + case 2:
>>>>>>>>>>> + data = bswap16(data);
>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>>>> + case 4:
>>>>>>>>>>> + data = bswap32(data);
>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>>>> + case 8:
>>>>>>>>>>> + data = bswap64(data);
>>>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>>>> + default:
>>>>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> + *ptr = data;
>>>>>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> While you're at it, I think that should rather be leXX_to_cpu()
>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>> of bswapXX() here,
>>>>>>>>> I don't think that's correct, as this is supposed to swap BE
>>>>>>>>> registers
>>>>>>>>> to LE PCI bars.
>>>>>>>> Yes, but for the CPU emulation, the registers are stored in the
>>>>>>>> host's
>>>>>>>> endianness in the CPUS390XState structure. Or why do we
>>>>>>>> byte-swap them
>>>>>>>> again with cpu_to_be64() during s390_store_status(), for example?
>>>>>>> Gah, endian conversion is eating my brain...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, is the content we get BE or not? I thought in our last
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>> we came to the conclusion that it is.
>>>>>> data is read from / written to env->regs[r1], so this is host
>>>>>> endian, as
>>>>>> far as I know. PCI is little endian, so using le32_to_cpu() /
>>>>>> cpu_to_le32() should IMHO be the right way to go here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, if we want to use both, cpu_to_le and le_to_cpu,
>>>>>> depending
>>>>>> on whether we read from or write to PCI, we should maybe *not* put
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> code into a separate function?
>>>>> Yes, if your assessment is correct, we need two functions (I think
>>>>> this
>>>>> conversion is used in other places in later patches as well). Or are
>>>>> there mechanisms for that already available?
>>>> I have a question, is the data in cpu->regs the guest's endianess?
>>> As far as I know, it's host endianness, so on x86 with TCG emulation,
>>> it's little endian.
>>>
>>>> In our case, the guest is S390. Although the arch is big-endian, the
>>>> data in
>>>> pcilg/stg instructions is little-endian.
>>> PCI memory is always little endian, right.
>>>
>>>> Another question, does 'cpu' in cpu_to_le**() or le**_to_cpu() mean the
>>>> host endianess?
>>> Yes, the "cpu" in cpu_to_le or le_to_cpu means the host, indeed. It's
>>> confusing :-/
>>>
>>>> If the answers to upper two questions are yes, we actually need handle
>>>> two cases.
>>>> 1) For pcilg, we need to translate the data to little-endian, thus
>>>> cpu_to_le**().
>>>> 2) For pcistg, we need to translate the data to host endianess, thus
>>>> le**_to_cpu().
>>> I think we've got to byte-swap if the host is big endian (s390x), but
>>> not if the host is little endian (x86 with TCG).
>
> Here is my comprehension of this funny swapping:
>
> - TCG for a BE guest and a le host swap bytes because if we do (register
> & 0x01) in the zPCI interception code it must work what ever the
> endianess is.
Uhhh, I might have missed that the value has already been byte-swapped
once by TCG for env->regs[r1] ...
Now I'm pretty much completely confused ... sorry for the noise if I was
wrong... I think it's best you ignore my comment for now (i.e. go with
bswapXX() instead of le_to_cpuXX()), and if we later wire up zPCI with
TCG, we still can fix this if necessary.
Thomas
