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

[Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@redhat.com>]

On 08/26/2011 06:22 PM, 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<kraxel@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti<mtosatti@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues<lmr@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> 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?

I will look for your patches and adapt them to the current conditions.

>> +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?

He already explained this, but this was an adaptation of an independent 
userspace program to run the unittests. I will convert to use fw_cfg then.

>> +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.

Ok.

>> +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.

Sure, good point, will look into doing it with getpagesize

>> +}
>> +
>> +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?

Yep, will look into converting it.

> Regards,

Thanks!