Thanks Daniel.
Let's wait for about a week or so for other suggestions to the patches and
then I'll send a new updated series.

сб, 7 дек. 2024 г. в 00:08, Daniel Henrique Barboza <
dbarb...@ventanamicro.com>:

>
>
> On 12/5/24 8:23 AM, baturo.ale...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Alexey Baturo <baturo.ale...@gmail.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Baturo <baturo.ale...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >   target/riscv/cpu.h        |  5 +++
> >   target/riscv/cpu_helper.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu.h b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > index 417ff45544..74d7076f5a 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu.h
> > @@ -768,8 +768,13 @@ void cpu_get_tb_cpu_state(CPURISCVState *env, vaddr
> *pc,
> >
> >   bool riscv_cpu_is_32bit(RISCVCPU *cpu);
> >
> > +bool riscv_cpu_virt_mem_enabled(CPURISCVState *env);
> > +RISCVPmPmm riscv_pm_get_pmm(CPURISCVState *env);
> > +int riscv_pm_get_pmlen(RISCVPmPmm pmm);
> > +
> >   RISCVException riscv_csrr(CPURISCVState *env, int csrno,
> >                             target_ulong *ret_value);
> > +
> >   RISCVException riscv_csrrw(CPURISCVState *env, int csrno,
> >                              target_ulong *ret_value,
> >                              target_ulong new_value, target_ulong
> write_mask);
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c b/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c
> > index dba04851d5..2558f869f2 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c
> > @@ -214,6 +214,80 @@ void cpu_get_tb_cpu_state(CPURISCVState *env, vaddr
> *pc,
> >       *pflags = flags;
> >   }
> >
> > +RISCVPmPmm riscv_pm_get_pmm(CPURISCVState *env)
> > +{
> > +    RISCVPmPmm pmm = PMM_FIELD_DISABLED;
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> > +    if (get_field(env->mstatus, MSTATUS_MPRV) &&
> > +        get_field(env->mstatus, MSTATUS_MXR)) {
> > +        return pmm;
> > +    }
> > +    int priv_mode = cpu_address_mode(env);
> > +    /* Get current PMM field */
> > +    switch (priv_mode) {
> > +    case PRV_M:
> > +        if (riscv_cpu_cfg(env)->ext_smmpm) {
> > +            pmm = get_field(env->mseccfg, MSECCFG_PMM);
> > +        }
> > +        break;
> > +    case PRV_S:
> > +        if (riscv_cpu_cfg(env)->ext_smnpm) {
> > +            if (get_field(env->mstatus, MSTATUS_MPV)) {
> > +                pmm = get_field(env->henvcfg, HENVCFG_PMM);
> > +            } else {
> > +                pmm = get_field(env->menvcfg, MENVCFG_PMM);
> > +            }
> > +        }
> > +        break;
> > +    case PRV_U:
> > +        if (riscv_has_ext(env, RVS)) {
> > +            if (riscv_cpu_cfg(env)->ext_ssnpm) {
> > +                pmm = get_field(env->senvcfg, SENVCFG_PMM);
> > +            }
> > +        } else {
> > +            if (riscv_cpu_cfg(env)->ext_smnpm) {
> > +                pmm = get_field(env->menvcfg, MENVCFG_PMM);
> > +            }
> > +        }
> > +        break;
> > +    default:
> > +        g_assert_not_reached();
> > +    }
> > +#endif
> > +    return pmm;
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool riscv_cpu_virt_mem_enabled(CPURISCVState *env)
> > +{
> > +    bool virt_mem_en = false;
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> > +    int satp_mode = 0;
> > +    int priv_mode = cpu_address_mode(env);
> > +    if (riscv_cpu_mxl(env) == MXL_RV32) {
> > +        satp_mode = get_field(env->satp, SATP32_MODE);
> > +    } else {
> > +        satp_mode = get_field(env->satp, SATP64_MODE);
> > +    }
> > +    virt_mem_en = ((satp_mode != VM_1_10_MBARE) && (priv_mode !=
> PRV_M));
> > +#endif
> > +    return virt_mem_en;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int riscv_pm_get_pmlen(RISCVPmPmm pmm)
> > +{
> > +    switch (pmm) {
> > +    case PMM_FIELD_DISABLED:
> > +        return 0;
> > +    case PMM_FIELD_PMLEN7:
> > +        return 7;
> > +    case PMM_FIELD_PMLEN16:
> > +        return 16;
> > +    default:
> > +        g_assert_not_reached();
> > +    }
> > +    return -1;
>
> You don't need a 'return -1' here since all possible return values are
> already
> covered in the 'switch' and the default label is using
> g_assert_not_reached(),
> i.e. you'll never return -1. The compiler will be fine with it - we use
> this
> kind of pattern all the time (cpu_get_fcfien() does this in this same
> file).
>
> You can remove the -1 return and even turn the helper to uint32_t. That way
> the caller knows that there's no need to handle negative values.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> > +}
> > +
> >   #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> >
> >   /*
>
>

Reply via email to