we're no long
aborting the SBI call, but returning non-supported instead.
I agreed, I'll split commits, but do you want me to resend patch as 2 patch
series or 2 separate patches?
Thanks,
drew
--
Sincerely,
Aleksei Filippov
On 08.07.2024 16:42, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Aleksei,
On 8/7/24 11:46, Aleksei Filippov wrote:
On 25.06.2024 21:18, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 6/25/24 07:46, Alexei Filippov wrote:
Was added call backs for machine specific pmu events.
Simplify monitor functions by adding new
t
device. What do you think about it? (I'll send it in the few days).
--
Sincerely,
Aleksei Filippov
RE is -1
anyway. Defines was added at first place just to came along with Linux kernel
SBI related defines.
--
Sincerely,
Aleksei Filippov
} else {
-run->riscv_sbi.ret[0] = -1;
+ret = -1;
}
-ret = 0;
break;
default:
LABLE -6
#define SBI_ERR_ALREADY_STARTED -7
#define SBI_ERR_ALREADY_STOPPED -8
+#define SBI_ERR_NO_SHMEM-9
#endif
Oh, my bad, wrong patch. Will resend properly.
--
Sincerely,
Aleksei Filippov
e know what do you think. If you agree I can re-send both patches together.
Thanks,
Daniel
Oh, I actually missed that, thx, you are right. I could prepare patch to fix
this, do you want it in this thread or in previous with only my patch in?
--
Sincerely,
Aleksei Filippov
est_phys_fault_addr in context of riscv_cpu_tlb_fill()) as this
was a guest-page-fault, but it didn't and mtval2 should be zero, according to
RISCV privileged spec sect. 9.4.4: When a guest page-fault is taken into M-mode,
mtval2 is written with either zero or guest physical address that faulted,
shifted by 2 bits. *For other traps, mtval2 is set to zero...*
--
Sincerely,
Aleksei Filippov
