[PATCH] RISC-V: Align SBI probe implementation with spec

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 12:17:02PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:42:11AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 07:22:54PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > sbi_probe_extension() is specified with "Returns 0 if the given SBI
> > > extension ID (EID) is not available, or 1 if it is available unless
> > > defined as any other non-zero value by the implementation."
> > > Additionally, sbiret.value is a long. Fix the implementation to
> > > ensure any nonzero long value is considered a success, rather
> > > than only positive int values.
> > 
> > Does this need a fixes tag (or tags) then, since we could easily return
> > a negative value as things stand if the SBI implementation decides to
> > return 0b1...1 for success?
> 
> Nothing is getting fixed when only considering the current generic opensbi
> platform, but there could be other SBI implementations Linux isn't
> handling correctly by only considering success to be greater than zero
> or by truncating the return value from long to int. I suppose that
> possibility does warrant a fix tag, which would be

Yah, I figured that something like opensbi would do the "sane" thing
here, but there's no accounting for taste and all that.

> Fixes: b9dcd9e41587 ("RISC-V: Add basic support for SBI v0.2")
> 
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h        |  2 +-
> > >  arch/riscv/kernel/cpu_ops.c         |  2 +-
> > >  arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c             | 17 ++++++++---------
> > >  arch/riscv/kvm/main.c               |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-riscv-sbi.c |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c        |  2 +-
> > >  6 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > > index 945b7be249c1..119355485703 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > > @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ int sbi_remote_hfence_vvma_asid(const struct cpumask *cpu_mask,
> > >  				unsigned long start,
> > >  				unsigned long size,
> > >  				unsigned long asid);
> > > -int sbi_probe_extension(int ext);
> > > +long sbi_probe_extension(int ext);
> > >  
> > >  /* Check if current SBI specification version is 0.1 or not */
> > >  static inline int sbi_spec_is_0_1(void)
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu_ops.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu_ops.c
> > > index 8275f237a59d..eb479a88a954 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu_ops.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu_ops.c
> > > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ const struct cpu_operations cpu_ops_spinwait = {
> > >  void __init cpu_set_ops(int cpuid)
> > >  {
> > >  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_SBI)
> > > -	if (sbi_probe_extension(SBI_EXT_HSM) > 0) {
> > > +	if (sbi_probe_extension(SBI_EXT_HSM)) {
> > >  		if (!cpuid)
> > >  			pr_info("SBI HSM extension detected\n");
> > >  		cpu_ops[cpuid] = &cpu_ops_sbi;
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> > > index 5c87db8fdff2..015ce8eef2de 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sbi.c
> > > @@ -581,19 +581,18 @@ static void sbi_srst_power_off(void)
> > >   * sbi_probe_extension() - Check if an SBI extension ID is supported or not.
> > >   * @extid: The extension ID to be probed.
> > >   *
> > > - * Return: Extension specific nonzero value f yes, -ENOTSUPP otherwise.
> > > + * Return: 1 or an extension specific nonzero value if yes, 0 otherwise.
> > >   */
> > > -int sbi_probe_extension(int extid)
> > > +long sbi_probe_extension(int extid)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct sbiret ret;
> > >  
> > >  	ret = sbi_ecall(SBI_EXT_BASE, SBI_EXT_BASE_PROBE_EXT, extid,
> > >  			0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> > >  	if (!ret.error)
> > > -		if (ret.value)
> > > -			return ret.value;
> > > +		return ret.value;
> > >  
> > > -	return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > +	return 0;
> > 
> > Why not make it return -ENOTSUPP for failures and 0 for success instead,
> > as it does not appear that any users actually care what the return value
> > is, once it is not an error?
> 
> Just to prepare for theoretical new uses.
> 
> > Concerned that it'll look weird to have
> > 	if(!sbi_probe_extension(foo))
> > 		print(foo is available!)
> > since it looks a bit weird that the !case is success?
> 
> No, that's pretty par for the course in the kernel. I'd just prefer
> that sbi_probe_extension() be a simple wrapper around the SBI call,
> one that doesn't change the SBI call's return value semantics.
> 
> > 
> > If so, perhaps it could just return a bool instead, unless of course I
> > am missing some pending user that make some decision on the actual value
> > returned here is.
> 
> No pending user that I'm aware of, but it's not too awkward, IMO, to
> implement this as the spec says, so any pending user that comes along
> will be happy from the start. If a boolean function seems better for
> everyone,

I don't really mind which way you do it to be honest.
I see reasons for both wanting alignment with what the SBI spec has &
for returning the simplest type that fits the usage.
Both are better than the current, potentially buggy, implementation.

Can put a
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
on it either way.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kvm-riscv/attachments/20230427/552cc251/attachment-0001.sig>