On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 2:16 AM Yifei Jiang <jiangyi...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> In the case of supporting PMP feature, add PMP state description
> to vmstate_riscv_cpu.
>
> 'vmstate_pmp_addr' and 'num_rules' could be regenerated by
> pmp_update_rule(). But there exists the problem of updating
> num_rules repeatedly in pmp_update_rule(). So here extracts
> pmp_update_rule_addr() and pmp_update_rule_nums() to update
> 'vmstate_pmp_addr' and 'num_rules' respectively.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yifei Jiang <jiangyi...@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yipeng Yin <yinyipe...@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
Alistair
> ---
> target/riscv/machine.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> target/riscv/pmp.c | 29 ++++++++++++++----------
> target/riscv/pmp.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/riscv/machine.c b/target/riscv/machine.c
> index 32edbcba7c..fc1461d88e 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/machine.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/machine.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,52 @@
> #include "sysemu/kvm.h"
> #include "migration/cpu.h"
>
> +static bool pmp_needed(void *opaque)
> +{
> + RISCVCPU *cpu = opaque;
> + CPURISCVState *env = &cpu->env;
> +
> + return riscv_feature(env, RISCV_FEATURE_PMP);
> +}
> +
> +static int pmp_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id)
> +{
> + RISCVCPU *cpu = opaque;
> + CPURISCVState *env = &cpu->env;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < MAX_RISCV_PMPS; i++) {
> + pmp_update_rule_addr(env, i);
> + }
> + pmp_update_rule_nums(env);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const VMStateDescription vmstate_pmp_entry = {
> + .name = "cpu/pmp/entry",
> + .version_id = 1,
> + .minimum_version_id = 1,
> + .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
> + VMSTATE_UINTTL(addr_reg, pmp_entry_t),
> + VMSTATE_UINT8(cfg_reg, pmp_entry_t),
> + VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
> + }
> +};
> +
> +static const VMStateDescription vmstate_pmp = {
> + .name = "cpu/pmp",
> + .version_id = 1,
> + .minimum_version_id = 1,
> + .needed = pmp_needed,
> + .post_load = pmp_post_load,
> + .fields = (VMStateField[]) {
> + VMSTATE_STRUCT_ARRAY(env.pmp_state.pmp, RISCVCPU, MAX_RISCV_PMPS,
> + 0, vmstate_pmp_entry, pmp_entry_t),
> + VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
> + }
> +};
> +
> const VMStateDescription vmstate_riscv_cpu = {
> .name = "cpu",
> .version_id = 1,
> @@ -70,5 +116,9 @@ const VMStateDescription vmstate_riscv_cpu = {
> VMSTATE_UINT64(env.timecmp, RISCVCPU),
>
> VMSTATE_END_OF_LIST()
> + },
> + .subsections = (const VMStateDescription * []) {
> + &vmstate_pmp,
> + NULL
> }
> };
> diff --git a/target/riscv/pmp.c b/target/riscv/pmp.c
> index c394e867f8..2eda8e1e2f 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/pmp.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/pmp.c
> @@ -136,18 +136,8 @@ static void pmp_decode_napot(target_ulong a,
> target_ulong *sa, target_ulong *ea)
> }
> }
>
> -
> -/* Convert cfg/addr reg values here into simple 'sa' --> start address and
> 'ea'
> - * end address values.
> - * This function is called relatively infrequently whereas the check that
> - * an address is within a pmp rule is called often, so optimise that one
> - */
> -static void pmp_update_rule(CPURISCVState *env, uint32_t pmp_index)
> +void pmp_update_rule_addr(CPURISCVState *env, uint32_t pmp_index)
> {
> - int i;
> -
> - env->pmp_state.num_rules = 0;
> -
> uint8_t this_cfg = env->pmp_state.pmp[pmp_index].cfg_reg;
> target_ulong this_addr = env->pmp_state.pmp[pmp_index].addr_reg;
> target_ulong prev_addr = 0u;
> @@ -186,7 +176,13 @@ static void pmp_update_rule(CPURISCVState *env, uint32_t
> pmp_index)
>
> env->pmp_state.addr[pmp_index].sa = sa;
> env->pmp_state.addr[pmp_index].ea = ea;
> +}
>
> +void pmp_update_rule_nums(CPURISCVState *env)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + env->pmp_state.num_rules = 0;
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_RISCV_PMPS; i++) {
> const uint8_t a_field =
> pmp_get_a_field(env->pmp_state.pmp[i].cfg_reg);
> @@ -196,6 +192,17 @@ static void pmp_update_rule(CPURISCVState *env, uint32_t
> pmp_index)
> }
> }
>
> +/* Convert cfg/addr reg values here into simple 'sa' --> start address and
> 'ea'
> + * end address values.
> + * This function is called relatively infrequently whereas the check that
> + * an address is within a pmp rule is called often, so optimise that one
> + */
> +static void pmp_update_rule(CPURISCVState *env, uint32_t pmp_index)
> +{
> + pmp_update_rule_addr(env, pmp_index);
> + pmp_update_rule_nums(env);
> +}
> +
> static int pmp_is_in_range(CPURISCVState *env, int pmp_index, target_ulong
> addr)
> {
> int result = 0;
> diff --git a/target/riscv/pmp.h b/target/riscv/pmp.h
> index 6a8f072871..6c6b4c9bef 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/pmp.h
> +++ b/target/riscv/pmp.h
> @@ -62,5 +62,7 @@ bool pmp_hart_has_privs(CPURISCVState *env, target_ulong
> addr,
> target_ulong size, pmp_priv_t priv, target_ulong mode);
> bool pmp_is_range_in_tlb(CPURISCVState *env, hwaddr tlb_sa,
> target_ulong *tlb_size);
> +void pmp_update_rule_addr(CPURISCVState *env, uint32_t pmp_index);
> +void pmp_update_rule_nums(CPURISCVState *env);
>
> #endif
> --
> 2.19.1
>
>
