On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 07:16:09PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> Split up the current test into several helpers that will be useful to
> subsequent test cases added to the PSCI test suite.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c | 68 ++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c
> index 8d043e12b137..90312be335da 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/psci_test.c
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static uint64_t psci_affinity_info(uint64_t target_affinity,
> return res.a0;
> }
>
> -static void guest_main(uint64_t target_cpu)
> +static void guest_test_cpu_on(uint64_t target_cpu)
> {
> GUEST_ASSERT(!psci_cpu_on(target_cpu, CPU_ON_ENTRY_ADDR, CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID));
> uint64_t target_state;
> @@ -69,12 +69,10 @@ static void vcpu_power_off(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid)
> vcpu_set_mp_state(vm, vcpuid, &mp_state);
> }
>
> -int main(void)
> +static struct kvm_vm *setup_vm(void *guest_code)
> {
> - uint64_t target_mpidr, obs_pc, obs_x0;
> struct kvm_vcpu_init init;
> struct kvm_vm *vm;
> - struct ucall uc;
>
> vm = vm_create(VM_MODE_DEFAULT, DEFAULT_GUEST_PHY_PAGES, O_RDWR);
> kvm_vm_elf_load(vm, program_invocation_name);
> @@ -83,31 +81,28 @@ int main(void)
> vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET, &init);
> init.features[0] |= (1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2);
>
> - aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &init, guest_main);
> - aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, &init, guest_main);
> + aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &init, guest_code);
> + aarch64_vcpu_add_default(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, &init, guest_code);
>
> - /*
> - * make sure the target is already off when executing the test.
> - */
> - vcpu_power_off(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET);
> + return vm;
> +}
>
> - get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_SYS_REG(MPIDR_EL1), &target_mpidr);
> - vcpu_args_set(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, 1, target_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK);
> - vcpu_run(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE);
> +static void enter_guest(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid)
> +{
> + struct ucall uc;
>
> - switch (get_ucall(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &uc)) {
> - case UCALL_DONE:
> - break;
> - case UCALL_ABORT:
> + vcpu_run(vm, vcpuid);
> + if (get_ucall(vm, vcpuid, &uc) == UCALL_ABORT)
> TEST_FAIL("%s at %s:%ld", (const char *)uc.args[0], __FILE__,
> uc.args[1]);
> - break;
> - default:
> - TEST_FAIL("Unhandled ucall: %lu", uc.cmd);
> - }
> +}
>
> - get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.pc), &obs_pc);
> - get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]), &obs_x0);
> +static void assert_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vm *vm, uint32_t vcpuid)
> +{
> + uint64_t obs_pc, obs_x0;
> +
> + get_reg(vm, vcpuid, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.pc), &obs_pc);
> + get_reg(vm, vcpuid, ARM64_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]), &obs_x0);
>
> TEST_ASSERT(obs_pc == CPU_ON_ENTRY_ADDR,
> "unexpected target cpu pc: %lx (expected: %lx)",
> @@ -115,7 +110,34 @@ int main(void)
> TEST_ASSERT(obs_x0 == CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID,
> "unexpected target context id: %lx (expected: %lx)",
> obs_x0, CPU_ON_CONTEXT_ID);
> +}
>
> +static void host_test_cpu_on(void)
> +{
> + uint64_t target_mpidr;
> + struct kvm_vm *vm;
> + struct ucall uc;
> +
> + vm = setup_vm(guest_test_cpu_on);
> +
> + /*
> + * make sure the target is already off when executing the test.
> + */
> + vcpu_power_off(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET);
> +
> + get_reg(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET, ARM64_SYS_REG(MPIDR_EL1), &target_mpidr);
> + vcpu_args_set(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, 1, target_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK);
> + enter_guest(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE);
> +
> + if (get_ucall(vm, VCPU_ID_SOURCE, &uc) != UCALL_DONE)
> + TEST_FAIL("Unhandled ucall: %lu", uc.cmd);
> +
> + assert_vcpu_reset(vm, VCPU_ID_TARGET);
> kvm_vm_free(vm);
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + host_test_cpu_on();
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.33.0.685.g46640cef36-goog
>
Hard to read diff, but I think the refactoring comes out right. Please do
this refactoring before adding the new test in the next revision, though.
Anyway, ignoring the new test context, which I think is changing with the
next revision
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
drew
