On 20/05/2021 11.47, Janosch Frank wrote:
Let's also check the PEI values to make sure our VSIE implementation
is correct.
Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
s390x/Makefile | 3 +-
s390x/mvpg-sie.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
s390x/snippets/c/mvpg-snippet.c | 33 ++++++++
s390x/unittests.cfg | 3 +
4 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 s390x/mvpg-sie.c
create mode 100644 s390x/snippets/c/mvpg-snippet.c
diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
index fe267011..6692cf73 100644
--- a/s390x/Makefile
+++ b/s390x/Makefile
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/uv-guest.elf
tests += $(TEST_DIR)/sie.elf
tests += $(TEST_DIR)/mvpg.elf
tests += $(TEST_DIR)/uv-host.elf
+tests += $(TEST_DIR)/mvpg-sie.elf
tests_binary = $(patsubst %.elf,%.bin,$(tests))
ifneq ($(HOST_KEY_DOCUMENT),)
@@ -79,7 +80,7 @@ FLATLIBS = $(libcflat)
SNIPPET_DIR = $(TEST_DIR)/snippets
report_abort
# C snippets that need to be linked
-snippets-c =
+snippets-c = $(SNIPPET_DIR)/c/mvpg-snippet.gbin
# ASM snippets that are directly compiled and converted to a *.gbin
snippets-a =
diff --git a/s390x/mvpg-sie.c b/s390x/mvpg-sie.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..a617704b
--- /dev/nullreport_abort
+++ b/s390x/mvpg-sie.c
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+#include <libcflat.h>
+#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
+#include <asm-generic/barrier.h>
+#include <asm/interrupt.h>
+#include <asm/pgtable.h>
+#include <mmu.h>
+#include <asm/page.h>
+#include <asm/facility.h>
+#include <asm/mem.h>
+#include <asm/sigp.h>
+#include <smp.h>
+#include <alloc_page.h>
+#include <bitops.h>
+#include <vm.h>
+#include <sclp.h>
+#include <sie.h>
+
+static u8 *guest;
+static u8 *guest_instr;
+static struct vm vm;
+
+static uint8_t *src;
+static uint8_t *dst;
+
+extern const char _binary_s390x_snippets_c_mvpg_snippet_gbin_start[];
+extern const char _binary_s390x_snippets_c_mvpg_snippet_gbin_end[];
+int binary_size;
+
+static void handle_validity(struct vm *vm)
+{
+ report(0, "VALIDITY: %x", vm->sblk->ipb >> 16);
+}
Maybe rather use report_abort() in that case? Or does it make sense to
continue running the other tests afterwards?
Thomas
