[debug] enhance set_pmp_deny to support alignment checks

[hirooih]

This PR sets the NAPOT range size considering the minimum PMP granularity supported by the hart.

This PR is separate from #632 as suggested by @en-sc .

The issue this PR solves.

• set_pmp_deny() is called by two tests, MemTestReadInvalid() and EtriggerTest(), with the argument bad_address.
• The default value of size for set_pmp_deny() is 4 KB.
• MemTestReadInvalid() requires 4 bytes and EtriggerTest() requires 1 byte for size, but they use the default value (4 KB).
• From debug/targets/RISC-V/spike32.py and debug/targets/RISC-V/spike64.py:

    ram = 0x1010_0000      // '_' is added
   ...
    bad_address = ram - 8  // 0x100f_fff8

• From testlib.py L1496

        self.gdb.p("$pmpaddr0="
                       f"0x{((address >> 2) | ((size - 1) >> 3)):x}")

pmpaddr0 is set to 0x100f_ffff >> 2 (1MB NAPOT range starting 0x1000_0000).

How this PR works

• The argument size of set_pmp_deny() now has no default value. The caller sets it to the value required by the test.
• The NAPOT range size is calculated as the minimum size required by the size argument and the minimum supported PMP granularity.
• set_pmp_deny() raises a TestNotApplicable error if the value of the argument address is inconsistent with the calculated size. This error allows users to set bad_address to a proper value.

[hirooih]

@en-sc,

Thank you for your suggestions. Let me ask you some about your concern.

From #632 (comment):

size is based on the result of communication with the target -- it can change sporadically.
Therefore this test can sporadically be marked as not applicable.

I think this is not avoidable. The tests implemented now require at most 4 bytes. A test which requires a large size may be added in future. In this case the maintainer of targets may have to change the value of bad_address.

1. minimum_pmp_granularity is a target property specified in the config.

What is the difference between the value of minimum_pmp_granularity and the return value of get_minimum_pmp_granularity() I proposed? I don't understand what issue this property solves.

If we introduce the target property minimum_pmp_granularity, we have to set it for each target under targets/.
I don't have enough information for each target.

[en-sc]

What is the difference between the value of minimum_pmp_granularity and the return value of get_minimum_pmp_granularity() I proposed?

Imagine the read of pmpaddr0 gets corrupted (e.g. HW bug). This may cause the test to be marked as not applicable -- and the testsuite will pass without failures. This is not correct.

If we introduce the target property minimum_pmp_granularity, we have to set it for each target under targets/.
I don't have enough information for each target.

AFAIU, minimum_pmp_granularity only makes sense for the case of support_set_pmp_deny = True -- there are no such targets in the repo.
As for the custom targets -- once the user will get an exception when running the testsuite, I feel like he will understand what is the cause. After all the property can be found in a couple runs of the test that checks it with no prior knowledge of the target. I don't think it's too much to ask.

In any case -- If you don't feel like doing it, IMHO the patch can be accepted as-is. It is a great improvement.

[hirooih]

@en-sc, thank you for your feedback.

Imagine the read of pmpaddr0 gets corrupted (e.g. HW bug). This may cause the test to be marked as not applicable -- and the testsuite will pass without failures. This is not correct.

AFAIU, minimum_pmp_granularity only makes sense for the case of support_set_pmp_deny = True -- there are no such targets in the repo.

Both make sense to me. Now I understand.

Give me some more days.

[hirooih]

@en-sc,

I have updated this PR.
Could you review this again?

[hirooih]

@en-sc,

I've fixed a conflict.
Could you please take a look at this?

Thanks.