On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 7:36 PM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Few v0.1 SBI calls are being replaced by new SBI calls that follows
> v0.2 calling convention.
>
> Implement the replacement extensions and few additional new SBI
> function calls that makes way for a better SBI interface in future.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
>
> ---
>
> arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/riscv/lib/sbi.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> index c65104f..3595ee8 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> @@ -53,6 +53,30 @@ enum sbi_ext_rfence_fid {
> SBI_EXT_RFENCE_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID,
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SBI_V01
> +#define SBI_EXT_SET_TIMER SBI_EXT_0_1_SET_TIMER
> +#define SBI_FID_SET_TIMER 0
> +#define SBI_EXT_SEND_IPI SBI_EXT_0_1_SEND_IPI
> +#define SBI_FID_SEND_IPI 0
> +#define SBI_EXT_REMOTE_FENCE_I SBI_EXT_0_1_REMOTE_FENCE_I
> +#define SBI_FID_REMOTE_FENCE_I 0
> +#define SBI_EXT_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA SBI_EXT_0_1_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA
> +#define SBI_FID_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA 0
> +#define SBI_EXT_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID SBI_EXT_0_1_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID
> +#define SBI_FID_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID 0
> +#else
> +#define SBI_EXT_SET_TIMER SBI_EXT_TIME
> +#define SBI_FID_SET_TIMER SBI_EXT_TIME_SET_TIMER
> +#define SBI_EXT_SEND_IPI SBI_EXT_IPI
> +#define SBI_FID_SEND_IPI SBI_EXT_IPI_SEND_IPI
> +#define SBI_EXT_REMOTE_FENCE_I SBI_EXT_RFENCE
> +#define SBI_FID_REMOTE_FENCE_I SBI_EXT_RFENCE_REMOTE_FENCE_I
> +#define SBI_EXT_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA SBI_EXT_RFENCE
> +#define SBI_FID_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA SBI_EXT_RFENCE_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA
> +#define SBI_EXT_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID SBI_EXT_RFENCE
> +#define SBI_FID_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID SBI_EXT_RFENCE_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID
> +#endif
> +
> #define SBI_SPEC_VERSION_DEFAULT 0x1
> #define SBI_SPEC_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT 24
> #define SBI_SPEC_VERSION_MAJOR_MASK 0x7f
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/lib/sbi.c b/arch/riscv/lib/sbi.c
> index 604a3a8..7bdf071 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/lib/sbi.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/lib/sbi.c
> @@ -97,10 +97,11 @@ void sbi_shutdown(void)
> void sbi_set_timer(uint64_t stime_value)
> {
> #if __riscv_xlen == 32
> - sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_0_1_SET_TIMER, 0, stime_value,
> + sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_SET_TIMER, SBI_FID_SET_TIMER, stime_value,
> stime_value >> 32, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> #else
> - sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_0_1_SET_TIMER, 0, stime_value, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> + sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_SET_TIMER, SBI_FID_SET_TIMER, stime_value,
> + 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> #endif
> }
>
> @@ -112,7 +113,7 @@ void sbi_set_timer(uint64_t stime_value)
> */
> void sbi_send_ipi(const unsigned long *hart_mask)
> {
> - sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_0_1_SEND_IPI, 0, (unsigned long)hart_mask,
> + sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_SEND_IPI, SBI_FID_SEND_IPI, (unsigned
> long)hart_mask,
> 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> }
>
> @@ -124,8 +125,8 @@ void sbi_send_ipi(const unsigned long *hart_mask)
> */
> void sbi_remote_fence_i(const unsigned long *hart_mask)
> {
> - sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_0_1_REMOTE_FENCE_I, 0, (unsigned long)hart_mask,
> - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> + sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_REMOTE_FENCE_I, SBI_FID_REMOTE_FENCE_I,
> + (unsigned long)hart_mask, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -141,7 +142,7 @@ void sbi_remote_sfence_vma(const unsigned long *hart_mask,
> unsigned long start,
> unsigned long size)
> {
> - sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_0_1_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA, 0,
> + sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA, SBI_FID_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA,
> (unsigned long)hart_mask, start, size, 0, 0, 0);
> }
>
> @@ -161,7 +162,8 @@ void sbi_remote_sfence_vma_asid(const unsigned long
> *hart_mask,
> unsigned long size,
> unsigned long asid)
> {
> - sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_0_1_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID, 0,
> + sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID,
> + SBI_FID_REMOTE_SFENCE_VMA_ASID,
> (unsigned long)hart_mask, start, size, asid, 0, 0);
> }
>
This is incorrect. IPI and SFENCE extension in SBI v0.2 accepts hart
mask as a value compared to a pointer to virtual address in SBI v0.1.
Maybe we should move this code to SBI_V01 given that SMP will be
enabled only for M-mode or SBI_V01 as per your latest patch ?
> --
> 2.7.4
>
--
Regards,
Atish
