On 2019-12-02 19:25, Pierre Morel wrote:
On 2019-12-02 16:03, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:46:07 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To test a write command with the SSCH instruction we need a QEMU device,
with control unit type 0xC0CA. The PONG device is such a device.
"We want to test some read/write ccws via the SSCH instruction with a
QEMU device with control unit type 0xC0CA." ?
This type of device respond to PONG_WRITE requests by incrementing an
s/respond/responds/
oiiinnnn..... but yes
integer, stored as a string at offset 0 of the CCW data.
This is only a success test, no error expected.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition^W^W^W an error :)
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
s390x/css.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/s390x/css.c b/s390x/css.c
index 534864f..0761e70 100644
--- a/s390x/css.c
+++ b/s390x/css.c
@@ -23,6 +23,10 @@
#define SID_ONE 0x00010000
#define PSW_PRG_MASK (PSW_MASK_IO | PSW_MASK_EA | PSW_MASK_BA)
+/* Local Channel Commands */
/* Channel commands for the PONG device */
?
better, thanks
+#define PONG_WRITE 0x21 /* Write */
+#define PONG_READ 0x22 /* Read buffer */
+
struct lowcore *lowcore = (void *)0x0;
static struct schib schib;
@@ -31,7 +35,8 @@ static struct ccw ccw[NB_CCW];
#define NB_ORB 100
static struct orb orb[NB_ORB];
static struct irb irb;
-static char buffer[0x1000] __attribute__ ((aligned(8)));
+#define BUF_SZ 0x1000
+static char buffer[BUF_SZ] __attribute__ ((aligned(8)));
Merge this with the introduction of this variable?
yes, better too
static struct senseid senseid;
static const char *Channel_type[3] = {
@@ -224,6 +229,44 @@ static void test_sense(void)
report("cu_type: expect c0ca, got %04x", 0, senseid.cu_type);
}
+static void test_ping(void)
+{
+ int success, result;
+ int cnt = 0, max = 4;
+
+ if (senseid.cu_type != PONG_CU) {
+ report_skip("No PONG, no ping-pong");
:D
+ return;
+ }
+
+ enable_io_irq();
Hasn't that been enabled already for doing SenseID?
Yes, but same remark as before, the sub tests here are independant,
started from the test[] table.
If the sense test is commented out, the...
hum, coming back here again, the tests depends one from the other and
are absolutely not independent as I pretended. so...
You are right I do not need to enable IRQ here.
+
+ while (cnt++ < max) {
+report_info("cnt..: %08x", cnt);
Wrong indentation?
wrong report !
forgotten from a test.
Thanks for the review,
Regards,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
