[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-riscv] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for 4.1 v3] target/riscv: Expose ti

From: Alistair Francis
Subject: Re: [Qemu-riscv] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for 4.1 v3] target/riscv: Expose time CSRs when allowed by [m|s]counteren
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 12:56:57 -0700

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:25 AM Palmer Dabbelt <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 23:58:34 PDT (-0700), address@hidden wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:23 AM Jonathan Behrens <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> I just did some testing on a HiFive Unleashed board and can confirm what
> >> you are saying. The low 5 bits of both mcounteren and scounteren are
> >> writable (if you try to write 0xFFFFFFFF to them, they'll take on the value
> >> 0x1F) but even with the TM bit set in both mcounteren and scounteren the
> >> rdtime instruction always generates an illegal instruction exception.
> >>
> >
> > Then I would think the FU540 is not spec complaint :)
> Ya, it's an errata.  There's a handful of them :)
> >> Reading through the relevant chapter of the spec, I still think that having
> >> mcounteren.TM be writable but making rdtime unconditionally trap is
> >> non-conformant. If other people feel strongly that rdtime should always
> >
> > Agree. To test hardware (FU540) compatibility in QEMU, maybe we can
> > add a cpu property to allow hard-wiring mcounteren.TM to zero?
> In theory we should have properties to control the behavior of all WARL 
> fields,
> but it's a lot of work.  I'd be happy to take a patch for any of them.

Hmmm... We should avoid taking patches that don't adhere to the spec
just to match some hardware. In the case that core/popular software
doesn't work it probably makes sense, but in general it's probably not
the best move.


> >> require trapping into firmware then the natural change would be to simply
> >> hardwire mcounteren.TM to zero (the value in scounteren wouldn't matter in
> >> that case so it could be left writable). My own (biased) personal feeling
> >> is that this full implementation makes sense at least for the `virt`
> >> machine type because it represents a clear case where deviating from
> >> current hardware enables a performance boost, and would not break
> >> compatibility with any current software: both OpenSBI and BBL try to enable
> >> hardware handling of rdtime when the platform claims to support it.
> >>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]