On Wed May 8, 2024 at 9:40 AM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2024, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu May 2, 2024 at 9:43 AM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> >> This function is no longer called for BookE MMU model so remove parts
> >> related to it. This has uncovered a few may be used uninitialised
> >> warnings that are also fixed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
> >> ---
> >> target/ppc/mmu_common.c | 25 +++++--------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/target/ppc/mmu_common.c b/target/ppc/mmu_common.c
> >> index a1f98f8de4..d61c41d8c9 100644
> >> --- a/target/ppc/mmu_common.c
> >> +++ b/target/ppc/mmu_common.c
> >> @@ -684,12 +684,10 @@ static int mmubooke_get_physical_address(CPUPPCState
> >> *env, mmu_ctx_t *ctx,
> >> ret = mmubooke_check_tlb(env, tlb, &raddr, &ctx->prot, address,
> >> access_type, i);
> >> if (ret != -1) {
> >> - if (ret >= 0) {
> >> - ctx->raddr = raddr;
> >> - }
> >> break;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> + ctx->raddr = raddr;
> >> qemu_log_mask(CPU_LOG_MMU,
> >> "%s: access %s " TARGET_FMT_lx " => " HWADDR_FMT_plx
> >> " %d %d\n", __func__, ret < 0 ? "refused" : "granted",
> >> @@ -897,9 +895,6 @@ static int
> >> mmubooke206_get_physical_address(CPUPPCState *env, mmu_ctx_t *ctx,
> >> ret = mmubooke206_check_tlb(env, tlb, &raddr, &ctx->prot,
> >> address,
> >> access_type, mmu_idx);
> >> if (ret != -1) {
> >> - if (ret >= 0) {
> >> - ctx->raddr = raddr;
> >> - }
> >> goto found_tlb;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> @@ -907,6 +902,7 @@ static int
> >> mmubooke206_get_physical_address(CPUPPCState *env, mmu_ctx_t *ctx,
> >>
> >> found_tlb:
> >>
> >> + ctx->raddr = raddr;
> >
> > Not sure about the uninitialized warnings here either, caller probably
> > should not be using ctx->raddr unless we returned 0...
> >
> >> qemu_log_mask(CPU_LOG_MMU, "%s: access %s " TARGET_FMT_lx " => "
> >> HWADDR_FMT_plx " %d %d\n", __func__,
> >> ret < 0 ? "refused" : "granted", address, raddr,
> >> @@ -1163,20 +1159,9 @@ static int get_physical_address_wtlb(CPUPPCState
> >> *env, mmu_ctx_t *ctx,
> >> MMUAccessType access_type, int type,
> >> int mmu_idx)
> >> {
> >> - bool real_mode;
> >> -
> >> - if (env->mmu_model == POWERPC_MMU_BOOKE) {
> >> - return mmubooke_get_physical_address(env, ctx, eaddr,
> >> access_type);
> >> - } else if (env->mmu_model == POWERPC_MMU_BOOKE206) {
> >> - return mmubooke206_get_physical_address(env, ctx, eaddr,
> >> access_type,
> >> - mmu_idx);
> >> - }
> >
> > This could just go in the previous patch when you split booke xlate?
>
> Removing this uncovers the warnings so I keep it here to separate it from
> the previous change. I gave up on trying to resolve these warnings and
> untangle the embedded functions from mmu_ctx_t which would be needed to
> move these booke functions out from this file. The other problem is that
> these booke get_physical_address functions and mmu40x_get_physical_address
> all use ppcemb_tlb_check which then needs to be in the same file and
> static to be inlined and not run too slow but 40x is still in jumbo_xlate
> so I just leave it for now and may return to it later or let somebody else
> continue from here. I think this series moves forward enough for now and I
> don't have more time now.
If you can't easily drop the path or solve the problem okay, just put
a comment or something on the zeroing and I'll take a closer look
when I merge.
>
> >> -
> >> - real_mode = (type == ACCESS_CODE) ? !FIELD_EX64(env->msr, MSR, IR)
> >> - : !FIELD_EX64(env->msr, MSR, DR);
> >> - if (real_mode && (env->mmu_model == POWERPC_MMU_SOFT_6xx ||
> >> - env->mmu_model == POWERPC_MMU_SOFT_4xx ||
> >> - env->mmu_model == POWERPC_MMU_REAL)) {
> >> + bool real_mode = (type == ACCESS_CODE) ? !FIELD_EX64(env->msr, MSR,
> >> IR)
> >> + : !FIELD_EX64(env->msr, MSR,
> >> DR);
> >> + if (real_mode) {
> >> memset(ctx, 0, sizeof(*ctx));
> >> ctx->raddr = eaddr;
> >> ctx->prot = PAGE_READ | PAGE_WRITE | PAGE_EXEC;
> >
> > This still changes beahviour of MPC8xx MMU doesn't it? It's supposed
> > to abort always.
>
> I don't think it can get here because there's still an abort case in
> ppc_tlb_invalidate_all() which is called from ppc_cpu_reset_hold() so it
> will likely crash before it could call anything here. But if you think
> it's necessary I could add a case for it in ppc_xlate() maybe.
I would rather not change it here. You can remove it with another patch.
Thanks,
Nick
