Physical Memory Protection (32/64) Tests and Covergroups

[MuhammadHammad001]

Description

This PR adds the arch tests for the PMP for 32 bit and 64 bit architecture and also the Covergroups have been added as well for the coverage analysis. This implements the Physical Memory Protection (PMP) section from the following Test Plan. The assembly arch tests have been developed by Mr. Umer Shahid and the coverpoints are developed by Muhammad Hammad Bashir.

Related Issues

The links to the PRs that need to be merged before this PR:

• PR #110 -- Support for Translator and Macros in RISCOF
• PR #80 -- Support for Privileged Architecture in RISC-V ISAC

Ratified/Unratified Extensions

• Ratified
• Unratified

List Extensions

Privileged Architecture -- Physical Memory Protection

Reference Model Used

• SAIL
• Spike
• Other - < SPECIFY HERE >

Mandatory Checklist:

• All tests are compliant with the test-format spec present in this repo ?
• Ran the new tests on RISCOF with SAIL/Spike as reference model successfully ?
• Ran the new tests on RISCOF in coverage mode
• Link to Google-Drive folder containing the new coverage reports available at: < Coverage Reports PMP >
• Link to PR in RISCV-ISAC from which the reports were generated : < PR #80 -- Support for Privileged Architecture in RISC-V ISAC>
• Changelog entry created with a minor patch

Optional Checklist:

• RISCV-V CTG PR link if tests were generated using it : < SPECIFY HERE >
• Were the tests hand-written
• Have you run these on any hard DUT model ? Please specify name and provide link if possible in the description
• If you have modified arch_test.h Please provide a detailed description of the changes in the Description section above.

[MuhammadHammad001]

@allenjbaum @jjscheel

[MuhammadHammad001]

@allenjbaum Can you please review this version of coverpoints and the tests? The updated coverage report has also been attached above for your reference.

@UmerShahidengr
@jamesbeyond

[jamesbeyond]

@MuhammadHammad001 , could have look at the CI checks, seems those added tests are failing

[MuhammadHammad001]

@jamesbeyond The reason the CI is failing on the tests is because as mentioned in the description, these tests and covergroups are written following the new privilege architecture features support in RISC-V ISAC and RISCOF. Once, those PRs are merged, these tests will also pass the CI.

[allenjbaum]

I'm a little concerned that the helper macros are hardcoded as to the PMP registers numbers, Is there any way those can be passed in as a parameter? that will help other tests n the future

[allenjbaum]

Overall the test structure is for each mode, different RWX settings with R,W, & X ops (R,W,RW,RX,RWX) or priority cases with same settings & a lower priority with RWX settings, or
a 3 level priority with the middle being no allowed accesses.
What is missing are for the first 2 cases: a noaccess case, for the second RWX cases (which is OK because its redundant).
In all case tests, the restricted case is higher priority than the all or none case.
I think you also need need tests where a restricted case is lower priority than no_Access or all access cases (see also comments on the first 2 tests).
I don't think there are tests here where the access is not matched by any entry, or paritally matched by any entry (without being unaligned). I think you can only do that with NA4 &ld, sd for RV64, and FLD,FSD in RV32 (so F-ext must be supported in that case)

[allenjbaum]

Bug is fixed

[allenjbaum]

The RV64 bugs fixed

[UmerShahidengr]

@allenjbaum please approve this PR again, your previous approval was dismissed because of the new commits, now it is passing the CI, so it is good to go now.

[jordancarlin]

Looks like the riscof_work folder was added in the latest commit. This definitely shouldn’t be included.

[allenjbaum]

CI is fixed, this is ready to go