Hi Palmer,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:40 AM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 18:22:21 PST (-0800), Bin Meng wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:59 PM weiwei <liwei...@iscas.ac.cn> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2023/2/14 22:27, Bin Meng wrote:
> >> > At present the envcfg CSRs predicate() routines are generic one like
> >> > smode(), hmode. The configuration check is done in the read / write
> >> > routine. Create a new predicate routine to cover such check, so that
> >> > gdbstub can correctly report its existence.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bm...@tinylab.org>
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > target/riscv/csr.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >> > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/target/riscv/csr.c b/target/riscv/csr.c
> >> > index 37350b8a6d..284ccc09dd 100644
> >> > --- a/target/riscv/csr.c
> >> > +++ b/target/riscv/csr.c
> >> > @@ -41,40 +41,6 @@ void riscv_set_csr_ops(int csrno,
> >> > riscv_csr_operations *ops)
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > /* Predicates */
> >> > -#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> >> > -static RISCVException smstateen_acc_ok(CPURISCVState *env, int index,
> >> > - uint64_t bit)
> >> > -{
> >> > - bool virt = riscv_cpu_virt_enabled(env);
> >> > - RISCVCPU *cpu = env_archcpu(env);
> >> > -
> >> > - if (env->priv == PRV_M || !cpu->cfg.ext_smstateen) {
> >> > - return RISCV_EXCP_NONE;
> >> > - }
> >> > -
> >> > - if (!(env->mstateen[index] & bit)) {
> >> > - return RISCV_EXCP_ILLEGAL_INST;
> >> > - }
> >> > -
> >> > - if (virt) {
> >> > - if (!(env->hstateen[index] & bit)) {
> >> > - return RISCV_EXCP_VIRT_INSTRUCTION_FAULT;
> >> > - }
> >> > -
> >> > - if (env->priv == PRV_U && !(env->sstateen[index] & bit)) {
> >> > - return RISCV_EXCP_VIRT_INSTRUCTION_FAULT;
> >> > - }
> >> > - }
> >> > -
> >> > - if (env->priv == PRV_U && riscv_has_ext(env, RVS)) {
> >> > - if (!(env->sstateen[index] & bit)) {
> >> > - return RISCV_EXCP_ILLEGAL_INST;
> >> > - }
> >> > - }
> >> > -
> >> > - return RISCV_EXCP_NONE;
> >> > -}
> >> > -#endif
> >> >
> >> > static RISCVException fs(CPURISCVState *env, int csrno)
> >> > {
> >> > @@ -318,6 +284,32 @@ static RISCVException umode32(CPURISCVState *env,
> >> > int csrno)
> >> > return umode(env, csrno);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static RISCVException envcfg(CPURISCVState *env, int csrno)
> >> > +{
> >> > + RISCVCPU *cpu = env_archcpu(env);
> >> > + riscv_csr_predicate_fn predicate;
> >> > +
> >> > + if (cpu->cfg.ext_smstateen) {
> >> > + return RISCV_EXCP_ILLEGAL_INST;
> >> > + }
> >>
> >> This check seems not right here. Why ILLEGAL_INST is directly
> >> triggered if smstateen is enabled?
> >
> > This logic was there in the original codes. I was confused when I
> > looked at this as well.
> >
> > Anyway, if it is an issue, it should be a separate patch.
>
> Seems reasonable to me, it's always nice to split up the refactoring types.
> So
> I queued this up as 4ac6c32224 ("Merge patch series "target/riscv: Various
> fixes to gdbstub and CSR access"").
>
> I had to fix up the From address on the patch you re-sent and there was a
> minor
> merge conflict, but otherwise things look sane to me. I'll hold off on
> sending
> anything for a bit just in case, though.
>
There are some open comments in this series I need to address. Please
drop this v1. I will send v2 soon.
Regards,
Bin
