relatively small part compare to upcoming kernel patch.
needed to run bhyve and bhyvectl on riscv
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Lint
Lint Skipped - Unit
Tests Skipped
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
This looks fine to me. I don't really like the duplication of fdt.c, but it's not that much code and it's not obvious to me that creating a generic FDT layer is useful at this point.
| usr.sbin/bhyve/riscv/vmexit.c | ||
|---|---|---|
| 153 | Formally, there should be a break here. | |
| usr.sbin/bhyve/riscv/fdt.c | ||
|---|---|---|
| 98 |
Also, do you actually trap and emulate Sstc on systems that lack it? | |
| usr.sbin/bhyve/riscv/vmexit.c | ||
| 62 | This needs to be initialised to set the BSP. | |
| 182 | >=? Though I don't love how we're conflating the vcpu number and the hart ID. In practice making them the same is probably sensible, but it might be nice to decouple the two, with no-op conversion functions. | |
Comment Actions
addressing @jrtc27 comments
- Fix isa string for the guest in DTS
- set bootable CPU bit into running_cpumask
- add no-op CPU_TO_HART / HART_TO_CPU macroses
| usr.sbin/bhyve/riscv/fdt.c | ||
|---|---|---|
| 98 | ok. | |
| usr.sbin/bhyve/riscv/vmexit.c | ||
|---|---|---|
| 61 | Is this really correct? Unrelated __FreeBSD_version bumps will change the SBI version. I'm not sure if that's desirable. | |
| 191 | If you change this to return (-1);, you can get rid of ret. But, the return value is ignored entirely. | |
| 274 | This return value is ignored. Should we report an error somewhere or log it or something? | |
| usr.sbin/bhyve/riscv/bhyverun_machdep.c | ||
|---|---|---|
| 61–63 | This is probably always fine, but it seems it could be placed dynamically after the bootrom, and whatever else is loaded into highmem. | |
| usr.sbin/bhyve/riscv/vmexit.c | ||
| 61 | It is returned in the "implementation version" call, and is therefore implementation defined and not generally used; this is distinct from the version of the SBI specification that is implemented (currently 0.2). This does open a window where the guest can query the exact patch-level of the host's bhyve(8) utility. | |
| 251–252 | It would be better to provide a macro near the top of the file than doing this inline; it highlights our targeted spec compliance. | |
Comment Actions
Instead of using static address for device tree blob, locate it just after bootrom image dynamically.