Christoph Muellner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu> says:
From: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
When building the RISC-V selftests with a riscv32 compiler I ran into
a couple of compiler warnings. While riscv32 support for these tests is
questionable, the fixes are so trivial that it is probably best to simply
apply them.
Note that the missing-include patch and some format string warnings
are also relevant for riscv64.
* b4-shazam-merge:
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in mm tests
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in vector tests
tools: selftests: riscv: Add missing include for vector test
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in cbo
tools: selftests: riscv: Fix compile warnings in hwprobe
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231123185821.2272504-1-christoph.muellner@vrull.eu
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
GCC prints a couple of format string warnings when compiling
the hwprobe test. Let's follow the recommendation in
Documentation/printk-formats.txt to fix these warnings.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Müllner <christoph.muellner@vrull.eu>
Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231123185821.2272504-2-christoph.muellner@vrull.eu
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
The "count" parameter associated with the 'cpus' parameter of the
hwprobe syscall is the size in bytes of 'cpus'. Naming it 'cpu_count'
may mislead users (it did me) to think it's the number of CPUs that
are or can be represented by 'cpus' instead. This is particularly
easy (IMO) to get wrong since 'cpus' is documented to be defined by
CPU_SET(3) and CPU_SET(3) also documents a CPU_COUNT() (the number
of CPUs in set) macro. CPU_SET(3) refers to the size of cpu sets
with 'setsize'. Adopt 'cpusetsize' for the hwprobe parameter and
specifically state it is in bytes in Documentation/riscv/hwprobe.rst
to clarify.
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231122164700.127954-7-ajones@ventanamicro.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Add hwprobe test for Zicboz and its block size. Also, when Zicboz is
present, test that cbo.zero may be issued and works. Additionally
provide a command line option that enables testing that the Zicbom
instructions cause SIGILL and also that cbo.zero causes SIGILL when
Zicboz it's not present. The SIGILL tests require "opt-in" with a
command line option because the RISC-V ISA does not require
unimplemented standard opcodes to issue illegal-instruction
exceptions (but hopefully most platforms do).
Pinning the test to a subset of cpus with taskset will also restrict
the hwprobe calls to that set.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Reviewed-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230918131518.56803-14-ajones@ventanamicro.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Returning (exiting with) negative exit codes isn't user friendly,
because the user must output the exit code with the shell, convert it
from its unsigned 8-bit value back to the negative value, and then
look up where that comes from in the code (which may be multiple
places). Use the kselftests TAP interface, instead.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230918131518.56803-13-ajones@ventanamicro.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
This adds a test for the recently added RISC-V interface for probing
hardware capabilities. It happens to be the first selftest we have for
RISC-V, so I've added some infrastructure for those as well.
Co-developed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evan@rivosinc.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230407231103.2622178-6-evan@rivosinc.com
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>
Palmer Dabbelt