diff options
author | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-04-11 08:27:49 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> | 2024-04-11 08:27:49 +0000 |
commit | ace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6 (patch) | |
tree | b2d64bc10158fdd5497876388cd68142ca374ed3 /tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c | |
parent | Initial commit. (diff) | |
download | linux-ace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6.tar.xz linux-ace9429bb58fd418f0c81d4c2835699bddf6bde6.zip |
Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15
Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c')
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c | 90 |
1 files changed, 90 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..09f290a674 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +#include <stddef.h> +#include <asm/hwprobe.h> + +/* + * Rather than relying on having a new enough libc to define this, just do it + * ourselves. This way we don't need to be coupled to a new-enough libc to + * contain the call. + */ +long riscv_hwprobe(struct riscv_hwprobe *pairs, size_t pair_count, + size_t cpu_count, unsigned long *cpus, unsigned int flags); + +int main(int argc, char **argv) +{ + struct riscv_hwprobe pairs[8]; + unsigned long cpus; + long out; + + /* Fake the CPU_SET ops. */ + cpus = -1; + + /* + * Just run a basic test: pass enough pairs to get up to the base + * behavior, and then check to make sure it's sane. + */ + for (long i = 0; i < 8; i++) + pairs[i].key = i; + out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, &cpus, 0); + if (out != 0) + return -1; + for (long i = 0; i < 4; ++i) { + /* Fail if the kernel claims not to recognize a base key. */ + if ((i < 4) && (pairs[i].key != i)) + return -2; + + if (pairs[i].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR) + continue; + + if (pairs[i].value & RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA) + continue; + + return -3; + } + + /* + * This should also work with a NULL CPU set, but should not work + * with an improperly supplied CPU set. + */ + out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, 0, 0); + if (out != 0) + return -4; + + out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, &cpus, 0); + if (out == 0) + return -5; + + out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, 0, 0); + if (out == 0) + return -6; + + /* + * Check that keys work by providing one that we know exists, and + * checking to make sure the resultig pair is what we asked for. + */ + pairs[0].key = RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR; + out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 1, 1, &cpus, 0); + if (out != 0) + return -7; + if (pairs[0].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR) + return -8; + + /* + * Check that an unknown key gets overwritten with -1, + * but doesn't block elements after it. + */ + pairs[0].key = 0x5555; + pairs[1].key = 1; + pairs[1].value = 0xAAAA; + out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 2, 0, 0, 0); + if (out != 0) + return -9; + + if (pairs[0].key != -1) + return -10; + + if ((pairs[1].key != 1) || (pairs[1].value == 0xAAAA)) + return -11; + + return 0; +} |