| Message ID | 20210922071811.1913-10-frankja@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | s390x: Cleanup and maintenance 2 | expand |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:11 +0000 Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > It's a base + displacement address so we need to address it via 0(%[addr]). > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> but see comment below > --- > s390x/skrf.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c > index 8ca7588c..84fb762c 100644 > --- a/s390x/skrf.c > +++ b/s390x/skrf.c > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static void test_tprot(void) > { > report_prefix_push("tprot"); > expect_pgm_int(); > - asm volatile("tprot %[addr],0xf0(0)\n" > + asm volatile("tprot 0(%[addr]),0xf0(0)\n" I think the displacement defaults to 0 if not specified? did you get a warning, or why are you changing this now? > : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : ); > check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION); > report_prefix_pop();
On 9/22/21 11:34 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 07:18:11 +0000 > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> It's a base + displacement address so we need to address it via 0(%[addr]). >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > > Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> > > but see comment below > >> --- >> s390x/skrf.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c >> index 8ca7588c..84fb762c 100644 >> --- a/s390x/skrf.c >> +++ b/s390x/skrf.c >> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static void test_tprot(void) >> { >> report_prefix_push("tprot"); >> expect_pgm_int(); >> - asm volatile("tprot %[addr],0xf0(0)\n" >> + asm volatile("tprot 0(%[addr]),0xf0(0)\n" > > I think the displacement defaults to 0 if not specified? > > did you get a warning, or why are you changing this now? It fixes one of the ~18 clang warnings and making it explicit directly tells you it's a B+D instruction i.e. it looks cleaner to me. > >> : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : ); >> check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION); >> report_prefix_pop(); >
On 9/22/21 3:41 PM, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 07:18:11AM +0000, Janosch Frank wrote: >> It's a base + displacement address so we need to address it via 0(%[addr]). >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> s390x/skrf.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c >> index 8ca7588c..84fb762c 100644 >> --- a/s390x/skrf.c >> +++ b/s390x/skrf.c >> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static void test_tprot(void) >> { >> report_prefix_push("tprot"); >> expect_pgm_int(); >> - asm volatile("tprot %[addr],0xf0(0)\n" >> + asm volatile("tprot 0(%[addr]),0xf0(0)\n" >> : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : ); >> check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION); >> report_prefix_pop(); >> -- >> 2.30.2 >> > > Let's add an argument to tprot instead. Sure, LGTM > -- >8 -- > Subject: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] lib: s390x: Add access key argument to tprot > > Currently there is only one callee passing a non zero key, > but having the argument will be useful in the future. > > Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> > --- > lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 6 +++--- > lib/s390x/sclp.c | 2 +- > s390x/skrf.c | 3 +-- > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h > index 302ef1f..55f3124 100644 > --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h > +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h > @@ -206,15 +206,15 @@ static inline unsigned short stap(void) > return cpu_address; > } > > -static inline int tprot(unsigned long addr) > +static inline int tprot(unsigned long addr, char access_key) > { > int cc; > > asm volatile( > - " tprot 0(%1),0\n" > + " tprot 0(%1),0(%2)\n" > " ipm %0\n" > " srl %0,28\n" > - : "=d" (cc) : "a" (addr) : "cc"); > + : "=d" (cc) : "a" (addr), "a" (access_key << 4) : "cc"); > return cc; > } > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c > index 9502d16..0272249 100644 > --- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c > +++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ void sclp_memory_setup(void) > /* probe for r/w memory up to max memory size */ > while (ram_size < max_ram_size) { > expect_pgm_int(); > - cc = tprot(ram_size + storage_increment_size - 1); > + cc = tprot(ram_size + storage_increment_size - 1, 0); > /* stop once we receive an exception or have protected memory */ > if (clear_pgm_int() || cc != 0) > break; > diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c > index 9488c32..e0a1007 100644 > --- a/s390x/skrf.c > +++ b/s390x/skrf.c > @@ -102,8 +102,7 @@ static void test_tprot(void) > { > report_prefix_push("tprot"); > expect_pgm_int(); > - asm volatile("tprot %[addr],0xf0(0)\n" > - : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : ); > + tprot((unsigned long)pagebuf, 0xf); > check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION); > report_prefix_pop(); > } >
diff --git a/s390x/skrf.c b/s390x/skrf.c index 8ca7588c..84fb762c 100644 --- a/s390x/skrf.c +++ b/s390x/skrf.c @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static void test_tprot(void) { report_prefix_push("tprot"); expect_pgm_int(); - asm volatile("tprot %[addr],0xf0(0)\n" + asm volatile("tprot 0(%[addr]),0xf0(0)\n" : : [addr] "a" (pagebuf) : ); check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIAL_OPERATION); report_prefix_pop();
It's a base + displacement address so we need to address it via 0(%[addr]). Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> --- s390x/skrf.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)