[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] xen/arm: Mark device as PCI while creating one
On 27.09.21 13:26, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 27.09.2021 12:04, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >> On 27.09.21 13:00, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 27.09.2021 11:35, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>>> On 27.09.21 12:19, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 27.09.2021 10:45, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>>>>> On 27.09.21 10:45, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 23.09.2021 14:54, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: >>>>>>>> --- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c >>>>>>>> @@ -328,6 +328,9 @@ static struct pci_dev *alloc_pdev(struct pci_seg >>>>>>>> *pseg, u8 bus, u8 devfn) >>>>>>>> *((u8*) &pdev->bus) = bus; >>>>>>>> *((u8*) &pdev->devfn) = devfn; >>>>>>>> pdev->domain = NULL; >>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM >>>>>>>> + pci_to_dev(pdev)->type = DEV_PCI; >>>>>>>> +#endif >>>>>>> I have to admit that I'm not happy about new CONFIG_<arch> conditionals >>>>>>> here. I'd prefer to see this done by a new arch helper, unless there are >>>>>>> obstacles I'm overlooking. >>>>>> Do you mean something like arch_pci_alloc_pdev(dev)? >>>>> I'd recommend against "alloc" in its name; "new" instead maybe? >>>> I am fine with arch_pci_new_pdev, but arch prefix points to the fact that >>>> this is just an architecture specific part of the pdev allocation rather >>>> than >>>> actual pdev allocation itself, so with this respect arch_pci_alloc_pdev >>>> seems >>>> more natural to me. >>> The bulk of the function is about populating the just allocated struct. >>> There's no arch-specific part of the allocation (so far, leaving aside >>> MSI-X), you only want and arch-specific part of the initialization. I >>> would agree with "alloc" in the name if further allocation was to >>> happen there. >> Hm, then arch_pci_init_pdev sounds more reasonable > Fine with me. Do we want this to be void or returning an error code? If error code is needed, then we would also need a roll-back function, e.g. arch_pci_free_pdev or arch_pci_release_pdev or arch_pci_fini_pdev or something, so it can be used in case of error or in free_pdev function. If so, then what's your preference on the name of that function? > > Jan > > Thank you, Oleksandr
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |