On 30/11/2017 13:14, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 November 2017 at 08:53, Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> +static const uint8_t kernel_mcf5208[] = {
>> + 0x41, 0xf9, 0xfc, 0x06, 0x00, 0x00, /* lea 0xfc060000,%a0 */
>> + 0x10, 0x3c, 0x00, 0x54, /* move.b #'T',%d0 */
>> + 0x11, 0x7c, 0x00, 0x04, 0x00, 0x08, /* move.b #4,8(%a0) Enable
>> TX */
>> + 0x11, 0x40, 0x00, 0x0c, /* move.b %d0,12(%a0) Print
>> 'T' */
>> + 0x60, 0xfa /* bra.s loop */
>> +};
>
> This approach doesn't seem to be scalable to me -- are we
> really going to have 50 or more fragments of hand-coded hex in
> this file to cover the various board models?
>
> I'd much rather see us have a framework for being able
> to build test blobs from source using a cross compiler
> setup (and docker or similar so anybody can rebuild
> the test blobs). That will be much easier to maintain
> and easier to extend to having tests that test other
> parts of the board or other aspects of TCG emulation.
It seems a bit overkill, as these snippets are ~16 bytes long.
However, it would be useful to have a basic patching mechanism so that
board descriptions could include a common hand-coded const array and
place an address at a given offset. So you'd have
struct HexFirmware {
int patch_offset;
short patch_size;
bool patch_bigendian;
uint8_t data[32];
}
and microblaze boards could have:
struct HexFirmware kernel_microblaze = {
.patch_offset = 0,
.patch_size = 2,
.patch_bigendian = false,
.data = {
0xaa, 0xaa, 0x00, 0xb0, /* imm 0x???? */
0x00, 0x10, 0x60, 0x30, /* addik r3,r0,0x1000 */
0x54, 0x00, 0x80, 0x30, /* addik r4,r0,'T' */
0x00, 0x00, 0x83, 0xf0, /* sbi r4,r3,0 */
0xfc, 0xff, 0x00, 0xb8, /* bri -4 loop */
}
};
...
{ "microblaze", "petalogix-s3adsp1800", "", "TT",
kernel_microblaze, 0x8400 },
{ "microblazeel", "petalogix-ml605", "", "TT",
kernel_microblaze, 0x83a0 },
Likewise, you could have just two copies of the code for all ARM boards
that have a pl011 (or any other UART with a simple byte-long transmit
register), one 32-bit and one 64-bit.
Thanks,
Paolo
