Re: [PATCH 09/11] KVM: arm64: selftests: get-reg-list: Simplify feature dependency

[Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@linux.dev>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 01:26:32PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Describing the dependencies between registers and features is on
> the masochistic side of things, with hard-coded values that would
> be better taken from the existing description.
> 
> Add a couple of helpers to that effect, and repaint the dependency
> array. More could be done to improve this test, but my interest is
> wearing  thin...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c        | 52 ++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c
> index d01798b6b3b47..a35b01d08cc63 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/arm64/get-reg-list.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,12 @@
>  #include "test_util.h"
>  #include "processor.h"
>  
> +#define SYS_REG(r)	ARM64_SYS_REG(sys_reg_Op0(SYS_ ## r),	\
> +				      sys_reg_Op1(SYS_ ## r),	\
> +				      sys_reg_CRn(SYS_ ## r),	\
> +				      sys_reg_CRm(SYS_ ## r),	\
> +				      sys_reg_Op2(SYS_ ## r))
> +
>  struct feature_id_reg {
>  	__u64 reg;
>  	__u64 id_reg;
> @@ -22,37 +28,23 @@ struct feature_id_reg {
>  	__u64 feat_min;
>  };
>  
> -static struct feature_id_reg feat_id_regs[] = {
> -	{
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 2, 0, 3),	/* TCR2_EL1 */
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 0, 7, 3),	/* ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1 */
> -		0,
> -		1
> -	},
> -	{
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 10, 2, 2),	/* PIRE0_EL1 */
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 0, 7, 3),	/* ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1 */
> -		8,
> -		1
> -	},
> -	{
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 10, 2, 3),	/* PIR_EL1 */
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 0, 7, 3),	/* ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1 */
> -		8,
> -		1
> -	},
> -	{
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 10, 2, 4),	/* POR_EL1 */
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 0, 7, 3),	/* ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1 */
> -		16,
> -		1
> -	},
> -	{
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 3, 10, 2, 4),	/* POR_EL0 */
> -		ARM64_SYS_REG(3, 0, 0, 7, 3),	/* ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1 */
> -		16,
> -		1
> +#define FEAT(id, f, v)					\
> +	.id_reg		= SYS_REG(id),			\
> +	.feat_shift	= id ## _ ## f ## _SHIFT,	\
> +	.feat_min	= id ## _ ## f ## _ ## v
> +
> +#define REG_FEAT(r, id, f, v)			\
> +	{					\
> +		.reg = SYS_REG(r),		\
> +		FEAT(id, f, v)			\
>  	}
> +
> +static struct feature_id_reg feat_id_regs[] = {
> +	REG_FEAT(TCR2_EL1,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, TCRX, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(PIRE0_EL1,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1PIE, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(PIR_EL1,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1PIE, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(POR_EL1,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1POE, IMP),
> +	REG_FEAT(POR_EL0,	ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1POE, IMP),
>  };
>  
>  bool filter_reg(__u64 reg)

After applied this series against kvm-next as of today, I testes this selftest on RevC FVP model with kvm-arm.mode=nested. All PASSed.

Tested-by: Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@fujitsu.com>