Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] hw: Add test device for unittests execution

[Edgar E. Iglesias]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:22:22PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/26/2011 03:04 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> >Add a test device which supports the kvmctl ioports,
> >for running the KVM test suite. This is a straight
> >port from the latest version of the test device present
> >on qemu-kvm, using the APIs currently in use by qemu.
> >
> >With this we aim for daily execution of
> >the KVM unittests to capture any problems with the
> >KVM interface.
> 
> I know this has come up before so apologies if this is redundant.
> 
> >
> >Usage:
> >
> >   qemu
> >      -chardev file,path=/log/file/some/where,id=testlog
> >      -device testdev,chardev=testlog
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann<address@hidden>
> >Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity<address@hidden>
> >Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti<address@hidden>
> >Signed-off-by: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues<address@hidden>
> >---
> >  Makefile.target |    1 +
> >  hw/testdev.c    |  140 
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 hw/testdev.c
> >
> >diff --git a/Makefile.target b/Makefile.target
> >index e280bf6..e095dd5 100644
> >--- a/Makefile.target
> >+++ b/Makefile.target
> >@@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ obj-i386-y += debugcon.o multiboot.o
> >  obj-i386-y += pc_piix.o
> >  obj-i386-$(CONFIG_KVM) += kvmclock.o
> >  obj-i386-$(CONFIG_SPICE) += qxl.o qxl-logger.o qxl-render.o
> >+obj-i386-y += testdev.o
> >
> >  # shared objects
> >  obj-ppc-y = ppc.o
> >diff --git a/hw/testdev.c b/hw/testdev.c
> >new file mode 100644
> >index 0000000..e38c20e
> >--- /dev/null
> >+++ b/hw/testdev.c
> >@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
> >+#include<sys/mman.h>
> >+#include "hw.h"
> >+#include "qdev.h"
> >+#include "isa.h"
> >+
> >+struct testdev {
> >+    ISADevice dev;
> >+    CharDriverState *chr;
> >+};
> >+
> >+static void test_device_serial_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t 
> >data)
> >+{
> >+    struct testdev *dev = opaque;
> >+    uint8_t buf[1] = { data };
> >+
> >+    if (dev->chr) {
> >+        qemu_chr_fe_write(dev->chr, buf, 1);
> >+    }
> >+}
> 
> I think I posted patches at some point for kvm unittests to use a
> standard UART.  Was there any reason not to do use a UART?
> 
> >+static void test_device_exit(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t data)
> >+{
> >+    exit(data);
> >+}
> 
> Port 501 can do this.
> 
> >+
> >+static uint32_t test_device_memsize_read(void *opaque, uint32_t addr)
> >+{
> >+    return ram_size;
> >+}
> 
> This can be read through fw_cfg, any reason to do PIO for this?
> 
> >+static void test_device_irq_line(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t data)
> >+{
> >+    qemu_set_irq(isa_get_irq(addr - 0x2000), !!data);
> >+}
> >+
> >+static uint32 test_device_ioport_data;
> >+
> >+static void test_device_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t 
> >data)
> >+{
> >+    test_device_ioport_data = data;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static uint32_t test_device_ioport_read(void *opaque, uint32_t addr)
> >+{
> >+    return test_device_ioport_data;
> >+}
> 
> Would be nicer to do this via an opaque.
> 
> >+static void test_device_flush_page(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t 
> >data)
> >+{
> >+    target_phys_addr_t len = 4096;
> >+    void *a = cpu_physical_memory_map(data&  ~0xffful,&len, 0);
> >+
> >+    mprotect(a, 4096, PROT_NONE);
> >+    mprotect(a, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE);
> >+    cpu_physical_memory_unmap(a, len, 0, 0);
> 
> This hard codes page size (get it via sysconf).  I think mprotect
> probably isn't available on windows either.
> 
> >+}
> >+
> >+static char *iomem_buf;
> >+
> >+static uint32_t test_iomem_readb(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr)
> >+{
> >+    return iomem_buf[addr];
> >+}
> >+
> >+static uint32_t test_iomem_readw(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr)
> >+{
> >+    return *(uint16_t*)(iomem_buf + addr);
> >+}
> >+
> >+static uint32_t test_iomem_readl(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr)
> >+{
> >+    return *(uint32_t*)(iomem_buf + addr);
> >+}
> >+
> >+static void test_iomem_writeb(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr, 
> >uint32_t val)
> >+{
> >+    iomem_buf[addr] = val;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static void test_iomem_writew(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr, 
> >uint32_t val)
> >+{
> >+    *(uint16_t*)(iomem_buf + addr) = val;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static void test_iomem_writel(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr, 
> >uint32_t val)
> >+{
> >+    *(uint32_t*)(iomem_buf + addr) = val;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static CPUReadMemoryFunc * const test_iomem_read[3] = {
> >+    test_iomem_readb,
> >+    test_iomem_readw,
> >+    test_iomem_readl,
> >+};
> >+
> >+static CPUWriteMemoryFunc * const test_iomem_write[3] = {
> >+    test_iomem_writeb,
> >+    test_iomem_writew,
> >+    test_iomem_writel,
> >+};
> >+
> >+static int init_test_device(ISADevice *isa)
> >+{
> >+    struct testdev *dev = DO_UPCAST(struct testdev, dev, isa);
> >+    int iomem;
> >+
> >+    register_ioport_write(0xf1, 1, 1, test_device_serial_write, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_write(0xf4, 1, 4, test_device_exit, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_read(0xd1, 1, 4, test_device_memsize_read, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_read(0xe0, 1, 1, test_device_ioport_read, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_write(0xe0, 1, 1, test_device_ioport_write, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_read(0xe0, 1, 2, test_device_ioport_read, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_write(0xe0, 1, 2, test_device_ioport_write, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_read(0xe0, 1, 4, test_device_ioport_read, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_write(0xe0, 1, 4, test_device_ioport_write, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_write(0xe4, 1, 4, test_device_flush_page, dev);
> >+    register_ioport_write(0x2000, 24, 1, test_device_irq_line, NULL);
> >+    iomem_buf = g_malloc0(0x10000);
> >+    iomem = cpu_register_io_memory(test_iomem_read, test_iomem_write, NULL,
> >+                                   DEVICE_NATIVE_ENDIAN);
> >+    cpu_register_physical_memory(0xff000000, 0x10000, iomem);
> >+    return 0;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static ISADeviceInfo testdev_info = {
> >+    .qdev.name  = "testdev",
> >+    .qdev.size  = sizeof(struct testdev),
> >+    .init       = init_test_device,
> >+    .qdev.props = (Property[]) {
> >+        DEFINE_PROP_CHR("chardev", struct testdev, chr),
> >+        DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(),
> >+    },
> >+};
> 
> Should this use MemoryRegion?

Yes. And what is the reason for using IO ports?
There are archs that dont have ioport connections out from the CPU.

If we are adding virtual devices for tests, they should preferably work for
all archs.

Cheers