Hi,

On 5/27/26 5:08 PM, Khushit Shah wrote:
>
>> On 19 May 2026, at 6:57 PM, Eric Auger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> !-------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>  CAUTION: External Email
>>
>> |-------------------------------------------------------------------!
>>
>> This helper decode the ID reg writable mask, matches it against
>> ID reg fields defined in target/arm/cpu-idregs.h.inc and
>> for each writable named field, generates a uint64 property.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> v4 -> v5:
>> - free prop_name
>> - check cpu->writable_map as a preamble in kvm_arm_expose_idreg_properties
>> ---
>> target/arm/kvm.c        | 135 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> target/arm/kvm_arm.h    |  10 +++
>> target/arm/trace-events |   4 ++
>> 3 files changed, 149 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/arm/kvm.c b/target/arm/kvm.c
>> index 30c5175c68..960052e67e 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/kvm.c
>> +++ b/target/arm/kvm.c
>> @@ -343,6 +343,141 @@ static int get_host_cpu_idregs(ARMCPU *cpu, int fd, 
>> ARMHostCPUFeatures *ahcf)
>>     return err;
>> }
>>
>> +static ARM64SysRegField *get_field(int i, ARM64SysReg *reg)
>> +{
>> +    for (int f = 0; f < reg->fields_count; f++) {
>> +        struct ARM64SysRegField *field = &reg->fields[f];
>> +        int upper = field->shift + field->length - 1;
>> +
>> +        if (i >= field->shift && i <= upper) {
>> +            return field;
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +    return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void set_sysreg_prop(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
>> +                            const char *name, void *opaque,
>> +                            Error **errp)
>> +{
>> +    ARM64SysRegField *field = (ARM64SysRegField *)opaque;
>> +    ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
>> +    uint64_t *idregs = cpu->isar.idregs;
>> +    uint64_t old, value, mask;
>> +    int lower = field->shift;
>> +    int length = field->length;
>> +    int index = field->index;
>> +
>> +    if (!visit_type_uint64(v, name, &value, errp)) {
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    if (length < 64 && value > ((1 << length) - 1)) {
>> +        error_setg(errp,
>> +                   "idreg %s set value (0x%lx) exceeds length of field 
>> (%d)!",
>> +                   name, value, length);
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    mask = MAKE_64BIT_MASK(lower, length);
>> +    value = value << lower;
>> +    old = idregs[index];
>> +    idregs[index] = old & ~mask;
>> +    idregs[index] |= value;
>> +    trace_set_sysreg_prop(name, old, mask, value, idregs[index]);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void get_sysreg_prop(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
>> +                            const char *name, void *opaque,
>> +                            Error **errp)
>> +{
>> +    ARM64SysRegField *field = (ARM64SysRegField *)opaque;
>> +    ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
>> +    uint64_t *idregs = cpu->isar.idregs;
>> +    uint64_t value, mask;
>> +    int lower = field->shift;
>> +    int length = field->length;
>> +    int index = field->index;
>> +
>> +    mask = MAKE_64BIT_MASK(lower, length);
>> +    value = (idregs[index] & mask) >> lower;
>> +    visit_type_uint64(v, name, &value, errp);
>> +    trace_get_sysreg_prop(name, value);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * decode_idreg_writemap: Generate props for writable fields
>> + *
>> + * @obj: CPU object
>> + * @index: index of the sysreg
>> + * @map: writable map for the sysreg
>> + * @reg: description of the sysreg
>> + */
>> +static int
>> +decode_idreg_writemap(Object *obj, int index, uint64_t map, ARM64SysReg 
>> *reg)
>> +{
>> +    int i = ctz64(map);
>> +    int nb_sysreg_props = 0;
>> +
>> +    while (map) {
>> +        ARM64SysRegField *field = get_field(i, reg);
>> +        int lower, upper;
>> +        char *prop_name;
>> +        uint64_t mask;
>> +
>> +        if (!field) {
>> +            warn_report("%s bit %d of %s is writable but no named field "
>> +                        "in target/arm/cpu-idregs.h.inc",
>> +                        __func__, i, reg->name);
>> +            warn_report("%s is target/arm/cpu-idregs.h.inc?", __func__);
>> +            map =  map & ~BIT_ULL(i);
>> +            i = ctz64(map);
>> +            continue;
>> +        }
>> +        lower = field->shift;
>> +        upper = field->shift + field->length - 1;
>> +        prop_name = g_strdup_printf("SYSREG_%s_%s", reg->name, field->name);
>> +        trace_decode_idreg_writemap(field->name, lower, upper, prop_name);
>> +        object_property_add(obj, prop_name, "uint64",
>> +                            get_sysreg_prop, set_sysreg_prop, NULL, field);
>> +        g_free(prop_name);
>> +        nb_sysreg_props++;
>> +
>> +        mask = MAKE_64BIT_MASK(lower, field->length);
>> +        map = map & ~mask;
>> +        i = ctz64(map);
>> +    }
>> +    trace_nb_sysreg_props(reg->name, nb_sysreg_props);
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* analyze the writable mask and generate properties for writable fields */
>> +void kvm_arm_expose_idreg_properties(ARMCPU *cpu, ARM64SysReg *regs)
>> +{
>> +    int i, idx;
>> +    Object *obj = OBJECT(cpu);
>> +
>> +    if (!cpu->writable_map) {
>> +        return;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < KVM_ARM_FEATURE_ID_RANGE_SIZE; i++) {
>> +        uint64_t mask = cpu->writable_map[i];
>> +
>> +        if (mask) {
>> +            /* reg @i has some writable fields, decode them */
>> +            idx = kvm_feature_idx_to_idregs_idx(i);
>> +            if (idx < 0) {
>> +                /* no matching reg? */
>> +                warn_report("%s: reg %d writable, but not in list of 
>> idregs?",
>> +                            __func__, i);
>> +            } else {
>> +                decode_idreg_writemap(obj, i, mask, &regs[idx]);
>> +            }
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +}
>> +
>> static void
>> kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features(ARMCPU *cpu, ARMHostCPUFeatures *ahcf)
>> {
>> diff --git a/target/arm/kvm_arm.h b/target/arm/kvm_arm.h
>> index c1c2e7ec37..8446a9cbf0 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/kvm_arm.h
>> +++ b/target/arm/kvm_arm.h
>> @@ -142,6 +142,16 @@ void kvm_arm_set_cpu_features_from_host(ARMCPU *cpu);
>>  */
>> void kvm_arm_add_vcpu_properties(ARMCPU *cpu);
>>
>> +typedef struct ARM64SysReg ARM64SysReg;
>> +/**
>> + * kvm_arm_expose_idreg_properties:
>> + * @cpu: The CPU object to generate the properties for
>> + * @reg: registers from the host
>> + *
>> + * analyze the writable mask and generate properties for writable fields
>> + */
>> +void kvm_arm_expose_idreg_properties(ARMCPU *cpu, ARM64SysReg *regs);
>> +
>> /**
>>  * kvm_arm_steal_time_finalize:
>>  * @cpu: ARMCPU for which to finalize kvm-steal-time
>> diff --git a/target/arm/trace-events b/target/arm/trace-events
>> index c25d2a1191..d72ad6b671 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/trace-events
>> +++ b/target/arm/trace-events
>> @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ arm_gt_update_irq(int timer, int irqstate) 
>> "gt_update_irq: timer %d irqstate %d"
>> kvm_arm_fixup_msi_route(uint64_t iova, uint64_t gpa) "MSI iova = 0x%"PRIx64" 
>> is translated into 0x%"PRIx64
>> get_host_cpu_idregs(const char *name, uint64_t value) "scratch vcpu host 
>> value for %s is 0x%"PRIx64
>> kvm_arm_writable_idregs_to_cpreg_list(const char *name, uint64_t previous, 
>> uint64_t new) "%s overwrite default 0x%"PRIx64" with 0x%"PRIx64
>> +decode_idreg_writemap(const char* name, int lower, int upper, char 
>> *prop_name) "%s [%d:%d] is writable (prop %s)"
>> +get_sysreg_prop(const char *name, uint64_t value) "%s 0x%"PRIx64
>> +set_sysreg_prop(const char *name, uint64_t old, uint64_t mask, uint64_t 
>> field_value, uint64_t new) "%s old reg value=0x%"PRIx64" mask=0x%"PRIx64" 
>> new field value=0x%"PRIx64" new reg value=0x%"PRIx64
>> +nb_sysreg_props(const char *name, int count) "%s: %d SYSREG properties"
>>
>> # cpu.c
>> arm_cpu_reset(uint64_t mp_aff) "cpu %" PRIu64
>> -- 
>> 2.53.0
>>
> Why only expose the writable fields? I assume any management layer would also
> atleast like to know the values of non-writable fields. If they just know 
> about 
> writable fields. How will they know if a migration is safe between two nodes?
>
> I understand we cannot write to non-writable fields but that does not mean we
> cannot expose the host values for those fields.
I replied separately to this on your series thread. I am inclined to do
so but this raises another problematic for the layered products to know
which mismatch can be fixed

Thanks

Eric
>
> Warm Regards,
> Khushit


Reply via email to