From 85c675d0d09a45a135bddd15d7b385f8758c32fb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Baumann Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 19:35:05 +0200 Subject: Adding upstream version 6.7.7. Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann --- tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c | 64 ++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c') diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c index 09f290a674..abb825811c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c @@ -1,14 +1,6 @@ // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only -#include -#include - -/* - * 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); +#include "hwprobe.h" +#include "../../kselftest.h" int main(int argc, char **argv) { @@ -16,6 +8,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) unsigned long cpus; long out; + ksft_print_header(); + ksft_set_plan(5); + /* Fake the CPU_SET ops. */ cpus = -1; @@ -25,13 +20,16 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) */ for (long i = 0; i < 8; i++) pairs[i].key = i; + out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, &cpus, 0); if (out != 0) - return -1; + ksft_exit_fail_msg("hwprobe() failed with %ld\n", out); + 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; + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to recognize base key: key != i, " + "key=%lld, i=%ld\n", pairs[i].key, i); if (pairs[i].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR) continue; @@ -39,52 +37,30 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) if (pairs[i].value & RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA) continue; - return -3; + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Unexpected pair: (%lld, %llu)\n", pairs[i].key, pairs[i].value); } - /* - * 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; + ksft_test_result(out == 0, "NULL CPU set\n"); out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, &cpus, 0); - if (out == 0) - return -5; + ksft_test_result(out != 0, "Bad CPU set\n"); out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, 0, 0); - if (out == 0) - return -6; + ksft_test_result(out != 0, "NULL CPU set with non-zero count\n"); - /* - * 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; + ksft_test_result(out == 0 && pairs[0].key == RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR, + "Existing key is maintained\n"); - /* - * 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; + ksft_test_result(out == 0 && pairs[0].key == -1 && + pairs[1].key == 1 && pairs[1].value != 0xAAAA, + "Unknown key overwritten with -1 and doesn't block other elements\n"); - return 0; + ksft_finished(); } -- cgit v1.2.3