[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH v10 0/3] hw/riscv: handle kernel_entry high bits with 32bit C

From: Daniel Henrique Barboza
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/3] hw/riscv: handle kernel_entry high bits with 32bit CPUs
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 15:50:11 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0

On 2/2/23 15:46, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 03:37:17PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 2/2/23 14:25, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 10:58:07AM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
This new version removed the translate_fn() from patch 1 because it
wasn't removing the sign-extension for pentry as we thought it would.
A more detailed explanation is given in the commit msg of patch 1.

We're now retrieving the 'lowaddr' value from load_elf_ram_sym() and
using it when we're running a 32-bit CPU. This worked with 32 bit
'virt' machine booting with the -kernel option.

If this approach doesn't work for the Xvisor use case, IMO  we should
just filter kernel_load_addr bits directly as we were doing a handful of
versions ago.

Patches are based on current riscv-to-apply.next.

Changes from v9:
- patch 1:
    - removed the translate_fn() callback
    - return 'kernel_low' when running a 32-bit CPU
- v9 link: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-01/msg04509.html

I think my T-b got lost last time around, but I gave this version a
whirl too & things are working for me as they were before on Icicle.

That was my bad. I forgot to add the test-by after doing the changes for
the next version.

Oh, I'm sorry. I saw a new version of the series a few days ago and
noticed the missing tags, and then saw this one today, touching MPFS,
and conflated the two.

But I don't think this is the series you're talking about. The tested-by tag
you gave was on these patches:

"[PATCH v5 0/3] riscv_load_fdt() semantics change"

I believe you can add a Tested-by there. And feel free to give it a go - the
patches are on riscv-to-apply.next already.

Tested-by stands here though, I replied to the same message-id that I
shazamed and tried ;)

Alright then. Tested-by on both series :D


And I did so on top of the HEAD of riscv-to-apply.next, so I am happy
with the version that got applied too.


reply via email to

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