On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 4:15 AM Samuel Holland <samuel.holl...@sifive.com> wrote: > > Hi Anup, > > On 2023-11-17 9:38 PM, Anup Patel wrote: > > Let us provide SBI debug console helper routines which can be > > shared by serial/earlycon-riscv-sbi.c and hvc/hvc_riscv_sbi.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <apa...@ventanamicro.com> > > --- > > arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h | 5 +++++ > > arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h > > index 66f3933c14f6..ee7aef5f6233 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h > > @@ -334,6 +334,11 @@ static inline unsigned long sbi_mk_version(unsigned > > long major, > > } > > > > int sbi_err_map_linux_errno(int err); > > + > > +extern bool sbi_debug_console_available; > > +int sbi_debug_console_write(unsigned int num_bytes, phys_addr_t base_addr); > > +int sbi_debug_console_read(unsigned int num_bytes, phys_addr_t base_addr); > > + > > #else /* CONFIG_RISCV_SBI */ > > static inline int sbi_remote_fence_i(const struct cpumask *cpu_mask) { > > return -1; } > > static inline void sbi_init(void) {} > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c > > index 5a62ed1da453..73a9c22c3945 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c > > @@ -571,6 +571,44 @@ long sbi_get_mimpid(void) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sbi_get_mimpid); > > > > +bool sbi_debug_console_available; > > + > > +int sbi_debug_console_write(unsigned int num_bytes, phys_addr_t base_addr) > > +{ > > + struct sbiret ret; > > + > > + if (!sbi_debug_console_available) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_32BIT)) > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_DBCN, SBI_EXT_DBCN_CONSOLE_WRITE, > > + num_bytes, lower_32_bits(base_addr), > > + upper_32_bits(base_addr), 0, 0, 0); > > + else > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_DBCN, SBI_EXT_DBCN_CONSOLE_WRITE, > > + num_bytes, base_addr, 0, 0, 0, 0); > > + > > + return ret.error ? sbi_err_map_linux_errno(ret.error) : ret.value; > > +} > > + > > +int sbi_debug_console_read(unsigned int num_bytes, phys_addr_t base_addr) > > +{ > > + struct sbiret ret; > > + > > + if (!sbi_debug_console_available) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_32BIT)) > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_DBCN, SBI_EXT_DBCN_CONSOLE_READ, > > + num_bytes, lower_32_bits(base_addr), > > + upper_32_bits(base_addr), 0, 0, 0); > > + else > > + ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_DBCN, SBI_EXT_DBCN_CONSOLE_READ, > > + num_bytes, base_addr, 0, 0, 0, 0); > > + > > + return ret.error ? sbi_err_map_linux_errno(ret.error) : ret.value; > > +} > > Since every place that calls these functions will need to do the vmalloc > lookup, > would it make sense to do it here, and have these take a pointer instead?
Yes, that's better. I will update. Regards, Anup