In the following RISC-V assembly code:
...
#Using some temporary (t) registers
...
addi a7,zero,1 #Printint system call code
addi a0,zero,100
ecall
...
Should any temporary (t) registers be saved to the stack before using ecall? When ecall is used, an exception occurs, kernel mode is on and code is executed from an exception handler. Some information is saved when exceptions occur, such as EPC and CAUSE , but what about the temporary registers? Environment calls are considered not to be like procedures for safety reasons, but they look like it. Do the procedure calling conventions still apply in this case?
You are correct that the hardware captures some information, such as the epc (if it didn't the interrupted pc would be lost during transfer of control to the exception handler).
However that's all the hardware does — the rest is up to software. Here, RARS is providing the exception handler for ecall.
RARS documentation states (from the help section on syscalls, which is what these are called on MIPS (and RARS came from MARS)):
Register contents are not affected by a system call, except for result registers as specified in the table below.
And below this quote in the help is ecall function code table labeled "Table of Available Services", in which 1 is PrintInt.
Should any temporary (t) registers be saved to the stack before using ecall?
No, it is not necessary, the $t registers will be unaffected by an ecall.
This also means that we can add ecalls to do printf-style debugging without concern for preserving the $t registers, which is nice. However, keeping that in mind, we might generally avoid $a0 and $a7 for our own variables, since putting in an ecall for debugging will need those registers.
In addition, you can write your own exception handler, and it would not have to follow any particular conventions for parameter passing or even register preservation.
Related
In an Operating Systems course, the instructor introduced PSW and PC when he talked about Interrupt Handling.
His explanation was
PC holds the address of the next instruction to be fetched
PSW contains execution status information
But later I searched online and found that PSW = PC + status register. This makes me quite confused.
On the one hand, I am not sure what "execution status information" refers to. On the other hand, if PSW has the functions of a PC, why do we still need it?
Appreciate any explanation.
This isn't really standardized terminology. Most architectures have some register that plays the role of a status word, containing bits to indicate things like whether an add instruction caused a carry. But different architectures give it different names, and what exactly is included can vary widely. I'm not aware of any architecture that includes the program counter as part of their status word, but if they want to do that, well, who's going to stop them?
This is the kind of thing where you just have to look at the definition given by whatever book or article you are reading (or infer it from context), and realize that a different author may use the word differently.
In general, interrupts are hardware level subroutine calls. They do the same thing as a subroutine call (change the algorithm that the processor is executing) however they do it without warning the "executing code" that they are now operating.
In order to not damage the "executing code" all information that it was using must be stored. This includes the Program Counter (usually saved to the stack by the interrupt hardware in the same way that a subroutine call does) and all of the registers that the interrupt function will alter- these must be saved by pushing them onto the stack. The registers etc must be restored before the return from interrupt (RETI) instruction - the PC is restored by the RETI itself.
The PSW (often called the flag register) is a very important register and must generally be saved first. It contains bits like Zero (the last calculation resulted in a zero result) Carry (the last calculation resulted in a carry ie the result number is bigger than the register can hold) and several other flags. I suggest that you read the data sheet of an 8 bit microcontroller for an idea of what these flags might be. suffice it to say that these flags are needed in order to perform conditional jumps. And whilst they will often be ignored you can't take that chance.
You are probably correct in Your instructor using the term PSW to mean all all of the registers.
The subject of interrupts contains concepts that are common to subroutine calls in general (e.g. don't leave data that you don't want overwritten in a register before entering a subroutine). And later on in operating systems, the concept of context switches that occur during multi-tasking.
Peter
I am a newbie to both FreeRTOS and STM32. I want to know how exactly callback function HAL_UART_TxCpltCallback for HAL_UART_Transmit_IT works ?
Can we edit that that callback function for our convenience ?
Thanks in Advance
You call HAL_UART_Transmit_IT to transmit your data in the "interrupt" (non-blocking) mode. This call returns immediately, likely well before your data gets fully trasmitted.
The sequence of events is as follows:
HAL_UART_Transmit_IT stores a pointer and length of the data buffer you provide. It doesn't perform a copy, so your buffer you passed needs to remain valid until callback gets called. For example it cannot be a buffer you'll perform delete [] / free on before callbacks happen or a buffer that's local in a function you're going to return from before a callback call.
It then enables TXE interrupt for this UART, which happens every time the DR (or TDR, depending on STM in use) is empty and can have new data written
At this point interrupt happens immediately. In the IRQ handler (HAL_UART_IRQHandler) a new byte is put in the DR (TDR) register which then gets transmitted - this happens in UART_Transmit_IT.
Once this byte gets transmitted, TXE interrupt gets triggered again and this process repeats until reaching the end of the buffer you've provided.
If any error happens, HAL_UART_ErrorCallback will get called, from IRQ handler
If no errors happened and end of buffer has been reached, HAL_UART_TxCpltCallback is called (from HAL_UART_IRQHandler -> UART_EndTransmit_IT).
On to your second question whether you can edit this callback "for convenience" - I'd say you can do whatever you want, but you'll have to live with the consequences of modifying code what's essentially a library:
Upgrading HAL to newer versions is going to be a nightmare. You'll have to manually re-apply all your changes you've done to that code and test them again. To some extent this can be automated with some form of version control (git / svn) or even patch files, but if the code you've modified gets changed by ST, those patches will likely not apply anymore and you'll have to do it all by hand again. This may require re-discovering how the implementation changed and doing all your work from scratch.
Nobody is going to be able to help you as your library code no longer matches code that everyone else has. If you introduced new bugs by modifying library code, no one will be able to reproduce them. Even if you provided your modifications, I honestly doubt many here will bother to apply your changes and test them in practice.
If I was to express my personal opinion it'd be this: if you think there's bugs in the HAL code - fix them locally and report them to ST. Once they're fixed in future update, fully overwrite your HAL modifications with updated official release. If you think HAL code lacks functionality or flexibility for your needs, you have two options here:
Suggest your changes to ST. You have to keep in mind that HAL aims to serve "general purpose" needs.
Just don't use HAL for this specific peripheral. This "mixed" approach is exactly what I do personally. In some cases functionality provided by HAL for given peripheral is "good enough" to serve my needs (in my case one example is SPI where I fully rely on HAL) while in some other cases - such as UART - I use HAL only for initialization, while handling transmission myself. Even when you decide not to use HAL functions, it can still provide some value - you can for example copy their IRQ handler to your code and call your functions instead. That way you at least skip some parts in development.
I am going through the book by Galvin on OS . There is a section at the end of chapter 2 where the author writes about "adding a system call " to the kernel.
He describes how using asmlinkage we can create a file containing a function and make it qualify as a system call . But in the next part about how to call the system call he writes the following :
" Unfortunately, these are low-level operations that cannot be performed using C language statements and instead require assembly instructions. Fortunately, Linux provides macros for instantiating wrapper functions that contain the appropriate assembly instructions. For instance, the following C program uses the _syscallO() macro to invoke the newly defined system call:
Basically , I want to understand how syscall() function generally works . Now , what I understand by Macros is a system for text substitution .
(Please correct me If I am wrong)
How does a macro call an assembly language instruction ?
Is it so that syscallO() when compiled is translated into the address(op code) of the instruction to execute a trap ?(But this somehow doesn't fit with concept or definition of macros that I have )
What exactly are the wrapper functions that are contained inside and are they also written in assembly language ?
Suppose , I want to create a function of my own which performs the system call then what are the things that I need to do . Do , I need to compile it to generate the machine code for performing Trap instructions ?
Man, you have to pay $156 dollars to by the thing, then you actually have to read it. You could probably get an VMS Internals and Data Structures book for under $30.
That said, let me try to translate that gibberish into English.
System calls do not use the same kind of linkage (i.e. method of passing parameters and calling functions) that other functions use.
Rather than executing a call instruction of some kind, to execute a system service, you trigger an exception (which in Intel is bizarrely called an interrupt).
The CPU expects the operating system to create a DISPATCH TABLE and store its location and size in a special hardware register(s). The dispatch table is an array of pointers to handlers for exceptions and interrupts.
Exceptions and interrupts have numbers so, when exception or interrupt number #1 occurs, the CPU invokes the 2d exception handler (not #0, but #1) in the dispatch table in kernel mode.
What exactly are the wrapper functions that are contained inside and are they also written in assembly language ?
The operating system devotes usually one (but sometimes more) exceptions to system services. You need to do some thing like this in assembly language to invoke a system service:
INT $80 ; Explicitly trigger exception 80h
Because you have to execute a specific instruction, this has to be one in assembly language. Maybe your C compiler can do assembly language in line to call system service like that. But even if it could, it would be a royal PITA to have to do it each time you wanted to call a system service.
Plus I have not filled in all the details here (only the actual call to the system service). Normally, when you call functions in C (or whatever), the arguments are pushed on the program stack. Because the stack usually changes when you enter kernel mode, arguments to system calls need to be stored in registers.
PLUS you need to identify what system service you want to execute. Usually, system services have numbers. The number of the system service is loaded into the first register (e.g., R0 or AX).
The full process when you need to invoke a system service is:
Save the registers you are going to overwrite on the stack.
Load the arguments you want to pass to the system service into hardware registers.
Load the number of the system service into the lowest register.
Trigger the exception to enter kernel mode.
Unload the arguments returned by the system service from registers
Possibly do some error checking
Restore the registers you saved before.
Instead of doing this each time you call a system service, operating systems provide wrapper functions for high level languages to use. You call the wrapper as you would normally call a function. The wrapper (in assembly language) does the steps above for you.
Because these wrappers are pretty much the same (usually the only difference is the result of different numbers of arguments), wrappers can be created using macros. Some assemblers have powerful macro facilities that allow a single macro to define all wrappers, even with different numbers of arguments.
Linux provides multiple _syscall C macros that create wrappers. There is one for each number of arguments. Note that these macros are just for operating system developers. Once the wrapper is there, everyone can use it.
How does a macro call an assembly language instruction ?
These _syscall macros have to generate in line assembly code.
Finally, note that these wrappers do not define the actual system service. That has to be set up in the dispatch table and the system service exception handler.
I want to organize a working bus functional model and push commonly used procedures (which look like CPU subroutines) out into a package and get them out of the main cpu model, but I'm stuck.
The procedures don't have access to the hardware bits when they're pushed out in a package.
In Verilog, I would put commonly used procedures out into an include file and link them into the CPU model as required for a given test suite.
More details:
I have a working bus functional model of a CPU, for simulation test benching.
At the "user interface" level I have a process called "main" running inside the CPU model which calls my predefined "instruction set" like this:
cpu_read(address, read_result);
cpu_write(address, write_data);
etc.
I bundle groups of those calls up into higher level procedures like
configure_communication_bus;
clear_all_packet_counters;
etc.
At the next layer these generic functions call a more hardware specific version which knows the interface timing for the design,
and those procedures then use an input record and output record to connect to the hardware module ports and waggle the cpu bus signals as required.
cpu_read calls hardware_cpu_read(cpu_input_record, cpu_output_record, address);
Something like this:
procedure cpu_read (address : in std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);
read_result : out std_logic_vector(31 downto 0));
begin
hardware_cpu_read(cpu_input_record, cpu_output_record, address, read_result);
end procedure;
The cpu_input_record and cpu_output_record are declared as signals of type nnn_record in the cpu model vhdl file.
So this is all working, but every single one of these procedures is all stored in the cpu VHDL module file, and all in the procedure declaration section so that they are all in the same scope.
If I share the model with team members they will need to add their own testing subroutines, and those also are all in the same location in the file, as well, their simulation test code has to go into the "main" process along with mine.
I'd rather link in various tests from outside the model, and only keep model specific procedures in the model file..
Ironically I can push the lowest level hardware procedure out to a package, and call those procedures from within the "main" process, but the higher level processes can't be put out into that package or any other packages because they don't have access to the cpu_read_record and cpu_write_record.
I feel like there must be a simple way to clean up this code and make it modular, and I'm just missing something obvious.
I don't really think making a command interpreter and loading my test code into a behavioral ROM is the right way to go by the way. Nor is fighting with the simulator interface to connect up a C program, but I may break down and try this..
Quick sketch of an answer (to the question I think you are asking! :-) though I may be off-beam...
To move the BFM subprograms into a reusable package, they need to be independent of the execution scope - that usually means a long parameter list for each of them. So using them in a testbench quickly gets tedious compared with the parameterless (or parameter-lite) versions you have now..
The usual workaround is to implement the BFM in a package, with long parameter lists.
Then write parameter-lite local equivalents (wrappers) in the execution scope, which simply call the package versions supplying all the parameters explicitly.
This is just boilerplate - not pretty but it does allow you to move the BFM into a package. These wrappers can be local to the testbench, to a process within it, or even to a subprogram within that process.
(The parameter types can be records for tidiness : these are probably declared in a third package, shared between BFM. TB, and synthesisable device under test...)
Thanks to overloading, there is no ambiguity between the local and BFM package versions, so the actual testbench remains as simple as possible.
Example wrapper function :
function cpu_read(address : unsigned) return slv_32 is
begin
return BFM_pack.cpu_read (
address => address,
rd_data_bus => tb_rd_data_bus,
wait => tb_wait_signal,
oe => tb_mem_oe,
-- ditto for all the signals constants variables it needs from the tb_ scope
);
end cpu_read;
Currently your test procedures require two extra signals on them, cpu_input_record and cpu_output_record. This is not so bad. It is not uncommon to just have these on all procedures that interact with the cpu and be done with it. So use hardware_cpu_read and not cpu_read. Add cpu_input_record, cpu_output_record to your configure_communication_bus and clear_all_packet_counters procedures and be done. Perhaps choose shorter names.
I do a similar approach, except I use only one record with resolved elements. To make this work, you need to initialize the record so that all elements are non-driving (ie: 'Z' for std_logic). To make this more flexible, I have created resolution functions for integer, time, and real. However, this only saves you one signal. Not a real huge win. Perhaps half way to where you think you want to be. But it is more work than what you are doing.
For VHDL-201X, we are working on syntax to allow parameters/ports automatically map to a identically named signal. This will get you to where you want to be with any of the approaches (yours, mine, or Brian's without the extra wrapper subprogram). It is posted here: http://www.eda.org/twiki/bin/view.cgi/P1076/ImplicitConnections. Given this, I would add the two records to your procedures and call it good enough for now.
Once you get by this problem, you seem to also be asking is how do I write separate tests using the same testbench. For this I use multiple architectures - I like to think of these as a Factory Class for concurrent code. To make this feasible, I separate the stimulus generation code from the rest of the testbench (typically: netlist connections and clock). My presentation, "VHDL Testbench Techniques that Leapfrog SystemVerilog", has an overview of this architecture along with a number of other goodies. It is available at: http://www.synthworks.com/papers/index.htm
You're definitely on the right track, in fact I have a variant like this (what you describe).
The catch is, now I build up a whole subroutine using the "parameter light" procedures, and those are what I want to put in a package to share and reuse. The problem is that any procedure pushed out to a package can't call to the parameter light procedures in the main vhdl file..
So what happens is we have one main vhdl file with all the common CPU hardware setup routines, and every designer's test code all in the same vhdl file..
Long story short, putting our test subroutines into separate files is really what I was hoping for..
Trying to understand why there are ioctl calls in socket.c ? I can see a modified kernel that I am using, it has some ioctl calls which load in the required modules when the calls are made.
I was wondering why these calls ended up in socket.c ? Isn't socket kind of not-a-device and ioctls are primarily used for device.
Talking about 2.6.32.0 heavily modified kernel here.
ioctl suffers from its historic name. While originally developed to perform i/o controls on devices, it has a generic enough construct that it may be used for arbitrary service requests to the kernel in context of a file descriptor. A file descriptor is an opaque value (just an int) provided by the kernel that can be associated with anything.
Now if you treat a file descriptor and think of things as files, which most *nix constructs do, open/read/write/close isn't enough. What if you want to label a file (rename)? what if you want to wait for a file to become available (ioctl)? what if you want to terminate everything if a file closes (termios)? all the "meta" operations that don't make sense in the core read/write context are lumped under ioctls; fctls; etc. unless they are so frequently used that they deserve their own system call (e.g. flock(2) functionality in BSD4.2)