On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:02:35PM +0530, Akshay Behl wrote:
> This patch adds a generic function for lock tests for all
> the sbi fwft features. It expects the feature is already
> locked before being called and tests the locked feature.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akshay Behl <akshaybehl231@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v3:
> - Fixed indentation.
> - Removed unnecessary comments.
> - Added locked prefix.
>
> v2:
> - Made changes to handel non boolean feature tests.
>
> riscv/sbi-fwft.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/riscv/sbi-fwft.c b/riscv/sbi-fwft.c
> index 581cbf6b..c4d0b170 100644
> --- a/riscv/sbi-fwft.c
> +++ b/riscv/sbi-fwft.c
> @@ -74,6 +74,37 @@ static void fwft_check_reset(uint32_t feature, unsigned long reset)
> sbiret_report(&ret, SBI_SUCCESS, reset, "resets to %lu", reset);
> }
>
> +/* Must be called after locking the feature using SBI_FWFT_SET_FLAG_LOCK */
> +static void fwft_feature_lock_test_values(uint32_t feature, size_t nr_values,
> + unsigned long test_values[], unsigned long locked_value)
Additional lines of parameters should line up underneath each other, i.e.
static void fwft_feature_lock_test_values(uint32_t feature, size_t nr_values,
unsigned long test_values[],
unsigned long locked_value)
I suggest reading other code (there's a function just above this one,
fwft_set_and_check_raw(), for example) to get a feel for the coding
style.
In this case, I've fixed it up while applying.
Applied to riscv/sbi
https://gitlab.com/jones-drew/kvm-unit-tests/-/commits/riscv/sbi
Thanks,
drew
