Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] vpci/header: Emulate legacy capability list for host

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:45:22PM +0800, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> Current logic of init_header() only emulates legacy capability list
> for guest, expand it to emulate for host too. So that it will be
> easy to hide a capability whose initialization fails and no need
> to distinguish host or guest.

It might be best if the initial code movement of the logic in
init_header() into it's own separate function was done as a
non-functional change, and a later patch added support for dom0.

It's easier to then spot the differences that you are adding to
support dom0.

> Signed-off-by: Jiqian Chen <Jiqian.Chen@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> cc: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v1->v2 changes:
> new patch
> 
> Best regards,
> Jiqian Chen.
> ---
>  xen/drivers/vpci/header.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c b/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
> index ef6c965c081c..0910eb940e23 100644
> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/header.c
> @@ -745,6 +745,76 @@ static int bar_add_rangeset(const struct pci_dev *pdev, 
> struct vpci_bar *bar,
>      return !bar->mem ? -ENOMEM : 0;
>  }
>  
> +/* These capabilities can be exposed to the guest, that vPCI can handle. */
> +static const unsigned int guest_supported_caps[] = {
> +    PCI_CAP_ID_MSI,
> +    PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX,
> +};

Is there a reason this needs to be defined outside of the function
scope?  So far it's only used by vpci_init_capability_list().

> +
> +static int vpci_init_capability_list(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> +    int rc;
> +    bool mask_cap_list = false;
> +    bool is_hwdom = is_hardware_domain(pdev->domain);
> +    const unsigned int *caps = is_hwdom ? NULL : guest_supported_caps;
> +    const unsigned int n = is_hwdom ? 0 : ARRAY_SIZE(guest_supported_caps);
> +
> +    if ( pci_conf_read16(pdev->sbdf, PCI_STATUS) & PCI_STATUS_CAP_LIST )
> +    {
> +        unsigned int next, ttl = 48;
> +
> +        next = pci_find_next_cap_ttl(pdev->sbdf, PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST,
> +                                     caps, n, &ttl);
> +
> +        rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_read_val, NULL,
> +                               PCI_CAPABILITY_LIST, 1,
> +                               (void *)(uintptr_t)next);
> +        if ( rc )
> +            return rc;
> +
> +        next &= ~3;
> +
> +        if ( !next && !is_hwdom )
> +            /*
> +             * If we don't have any supported capabilities to expose to the
> +             * guest, mask the PCI_STATUS_CAP_LIST bit in the status 
> register.
> +             */
> +            mask_cap_list = true;
> +
> +        while ( next && ttl )
> +        {
> +            unsigned int pos = next;
> +
> +            next = pci_find_next_cap_ttl(pdev->sbdf, pos + PCI_CAP_LIST_NEXT,
> +                                         caps, n, &ttl);
> +
> +            rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_hw_read8, NULL,
> +                                   pos + PCI_CAP_LIST_ID, 1, NULL);

There's no need to add this handler for the hardware domain, that's
already the default behavior in that case.

Thanks, Roger.