On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 05:11:21PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > The SMC64 calling convention passes a function identifier in w0 and its > parameters in x1-x17. Given this, there are two deviations in the > SMC64 call performed by the steal_time test: the function identifier is > assigned to a 64 bit register and the parameter is only 32 bits wide. > > Align the call with the SMCCC by using a 32 bit register to handle the > function identifier and increasing the parameter width to 64 bits. > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <[email protected]> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/steal_time.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/steal_time.c > b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/steal_time.c > index ecec30865a74..aafaa8e38b7c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/steal_time.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/steal_time.c > @@ -118,12 +118,12 @@ struct st_time { > uint64_t st_time; > }; > > -static int64_t smccc(uint32_t func, uint32_t arg) > +static int64_t smccc(uint32_t func, uint64_t arg) > { > unsigned long ret; > > asm volatile( > - "mov x0, %1\n" > + "mov w0, %w1\n" > "mov x1, %2\n" > "hvc #0\n" > "mov %0, x0\n" > -- > 2.33.0.464.g1972c5931b-goog >
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
