On 9/7/23 07:39, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
On Wed Sep 6, 2023 at 2:33 PM AEST, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
This patch implements nested PAPR hcall H_GUEST_SET_CAPABILITIES.
This is used by L1 to set capabilities of the nested guest being
created. The capabilities being set are subset of the capabilities
returned from the previous call to H_GUEST_GET_CAPABILITIES hcall.
Currently, it only supports P9/P10 capability check through PVR.
Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mi...@neuling.org>
Signed-off-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <hars...@linux.ibm.com>
---
hw/ppc/spapr.c | 1 +
hw/ppc/spapr_nested.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.h | 3 +++
3 files changed, 50 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
index cbab7a825f..7c6f6ee25d 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
@@ -3443,6 +3443,7 @@ static void spapr_instance_init(Object *obj)
"Host serial number to advertise in guest device tree");
/* Nested */
spapr->nested.api = 0;
+ spapr->nested.capabilities_set = false;
I would actually think about moving spapr->nested init into
spapr_nested.c.
Agree, moved.
}
static void spapr_machine_finalizefn(Object *obj)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.c
index 37f3a49be2..9af65f257f 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.c
@@ -399,6 +399,51 @@ static target_ulong h_guest_get_capabilities(PowerPCCPU
*cpu,
return H_SUCCESS;
}
+static target_ulong h_guest_set_capabilities(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
+ SpaprMachineState *spapr,
+ target_ulong opcode,
+ target_ulong *args)
+{
+ CPUPPCState *env = &cpu->env;
+ target_ulong flags = args[0];
+ target_ulong capabilities = args[1];
+
+ if (flags) { /* don't handle any flags capabilities for now */
+ return H_PARAMETER;
+ }
+
+
May need to do a pass over whitespace.
Sure, done.
+ /* isn't supported */
+ if (capabilities & H_GUEST_CAPABILITIES_COPY_MEM) {
+ env->gpr[4] = 0;
+ return H_P2;
+ }
+
+ if ((env->spr[SPR_PVR] & CPU_POWERPC_POWER_SERVER_MASK) ==
+ (CPU_POWERPC_POWER9_BASE)) {
+ /* We are a P9 */
+ if (!(capabilities & H_GUEST_CAPABILITIES_P9_MODE)) {
+ env->gpr[4] = 1;
+ return H_P2;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if ((env->spr[SPR_PVR] & CPU_POWERPC_POWER_SERVER_MASK) ==
+ (CPU_POWERPC_POWER10_BASE)) {
+ /* We are a P10 */
The 2 comments above aren't helpful. Just remove them.
Sure, done.
+ if (!(capabilities & H_GUEST_CAPABILITIES_P10_MODE)) {
+ env->gpr[4] = 2;
+ return H_P2;
+ }
+ }
+
+ spapr->nested.capabilities_set = true;
Is it okay to set twice? If not, add a check. If yes, remove
capabilities_set until it's needed.
Thanks for pointing it out, adding a check as appropriate.
Thanks
Harsh
+
+ spapr->nested.pvr_base = env->spr[SPR_PVR];
+
+ return H_SUCCESS;
+}
+
void spapr_register_nested(void)
{
spapr_register_hypercall(KVMPPC_H_SET_PARTITION_TABLE, h_set_ptbl);
@@ -410,6 +455,7 @@ void spapr_register_nested(void)
void spapr_register_nested_phyp(void)
{
spapr_register_hypercall(H_GUEST_GET_CAPABILITIES,
h_guest_get_capabilities);
+ spapr_register_hypercall(H_GUEST_SET_CAPABILITIES,
h_guest_set_capabilities);
}
#else
diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.h b/include/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.h
index ce198e9f70..a7996251cb 100644
--- a/include/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.h
+++ b/include/hw/ppc/spapr_nested.h
@@ -193,6 +193,9 @@
#define H_GUEST_CAPABILITIES_COPY_MEM 0x8000000000000000
#define H_GUEST_CAPABILITIES_P9_MODE 0x4000000000000000
#define H_GUEST_CAPABILITIES_P10_MODE 0x2000000000000000
+#define H_GUEST_CAP_COPY_MEM_BMAP 0
+#define H_GUEST_CAP_P9_MODE_BMAP 1
+#define H_GUEST_CAP_P10_MODE_BMAP 2
typedef struct SpaprMachineStateNestedGuest {
unsigned long vcpus;