[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v1 06/14] xen/riscv: riscv_of_processor_hartid() implementation


  • To: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 17:53:48 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xxxxxxx>, Bob Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxxx>, Connor Davis <connojdavis@xxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:54:14 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 08.04.2025 17:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> @@ -13,3 +16,68 @@ void __init smp_clear_cpu_maps(void)
>      cpumask_set_cpu(0, &cpu_online_map);
>      cpumask_copy(&cpu_present_map, &cpu_possible_map);
>  }
> +
> +/**
> + * of_get_cpu_hwid - Get the hardware ID from a CPU device node
> + *
> + * @cpun: CPU number(logical index) for which device node is required
> + * @thread: The local thread number to get the hardware ID for.
> + *
> + * Return: The hardware ID for the CPU node or ~0ULL if not found.
> + */
> +static uint64_t of_get_cpu_hwid(struct dt_device_node *cpun, unsigned int 
> thread)

What does the "of" prefix stand for here? Looking at the function body I'm
really at a loss. (I was first guessing something like OpenFirmware, but
there's nothing here that would support that.)

As you're only fetching data - can cpun be pointer-to-const?

> +{
> +    const __be32 *cell;
> +    int ac;
> +    uint32_t len;
> +
> +    ac = dt_n_addr_cells(cpun);
> +    cell = dt_get_property(cpun, "reg", &len);
> +    if ( !cell || !ac || ((sizeof(*cell) * ac * (thread + 1)) > len) )
> +        return ~0ULL;

I'm sorry for my lack of DT knowledge, but what's "thread" representing here?
You only pass in 0 below, so it's unclear whether it's what one might expect
(the thread number on a multi-threaded core).

> +    cell += ac * thread;
> +    return dt_read_number(cell, ac);

Nit (you know what)

> +/*
> + * Returns the hart ID of the given device tree node, or -ENODEV if the node
> + * isn't an enabled and valid RISC-V hart node.
> + */
> +int riscv_of_processor_hartid(struct dt_device_node *node, unsigned long 
> *hart)

Similar question as above: What's "of" and what significance does the "riscv"
prefix have in RISC-V code?

Const-ness question again for "node".

> +{
> +    const char *isa;
> +
> +    if ( !dt_device_is_compatible(node, "riscv") )
> +    {
> +        printk("Found incompatible CPU\n");
> +        return -ENODEV;
> +    }
> +
> +    *hart = (unsigned long) of_get_cpu_hwid(node, 0);
> +    if ( *hart == ~0UL )

While for RV64 this won't matter, the difference in types (uint64_t returned,
unsigned long used) is still puzzling me. What's the deal?

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.