On 01.10.21 16:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.09.2021 09:52, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> @@ -445,14 +456,25 @@ static void rom_write(const struct pci_dev *pdev,
>> unsigned int reg,
>> rom->addr = val & PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK;
>> }
>>
>> -static int add_bar_handlers(const struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> +static void guest_rom_write(const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int reg,
>> + uint32_t val, void *data)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> +static uint32_t guest_rom_read(const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int reg,
>> + void *data)
>> +{
>> + return 0xffffffff;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int add_bar_handlers(const struct pci_dev *pdev, bool is_hwdom)
> I remain unconvinced that this boolean is the best way to go here,
I can remove "bool is_hwdom" and have the checks like:
static int add_bar_handlers(const struct pci_dev *pdev)
{
...
if ( is_hardware_domain(pdev->domain) )
rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_hw_read16, cmd_write,
PCI_COMMAND, 2, header);
else
rc = vpci_add_register(pdev->vpci, vpci_hw_read16, guest_cmd_write,
PCI_COMMAND, 2, header);
Is this going to be better?
> but
> I'll leave the decision there to Roger. Just a couple of nits:
>
>> @@ -593,6 +625,30 @@ static int init_bars(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>> }
>> REGISTER_VPCI_INIT(init_bars, VPCI_PRIORITY_MIDDLE);
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_VPCI_GUEST_SUPPORT
>> +int vpci_bar_add_handlers(const struct domain *d, const struct pci_dev
>> *pdev)
>> +{
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + /* Remove previously added registers. */
>> + vpci_remove_device_registers(pdev);
>> +
>> + rc = add_bar_handlers(pdev, is_hardware_domain(d));
>> + if ( rc )
>> + gdprintk(XENLOG_ERR,
>> + "%pp: failed to add BAR handlers for dom%pd: %d\n",
> Only %pd please, as that already expands to d<num>.
Good catch, thank you!
>
>> + &pdev->sbdf, d, rc);
>> + return rc;
> Blank line please ahead of the main return statement of a function.
Will add
>
> Jan
>
Thank you,
Oleksandr
