lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 02/10] vfio/fsl-mc: Scan DPRC objects on vfio-fsl-mc driver bind
From
Date
On 10/2/2020 8:24 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:03:31 +0300
> Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@oss.nxp.com> wrote:
>
>> The DPRC (Data Path Resource Container) device is a bus device and has
>> child devices attached to it. When the vfio-fsl-mc driver is probed
>> the DPRC is scanned and the child devices discovered and initialized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bharat Bhushan <Bharat.Bhushan@nxp.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@oss.nxp.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc_private.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 91 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c
>> index a7a483a1e90b..ba44d6d01cc9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
>>
>> #include "vfio_fsl_mc_private.h"
>>
>> +static struct fsl_mc_driver vfio_fsl_mc_driver;
>> +
>> static int vfio_fsl_mc_open(void *device_data)
>> {
>> if (!try_module_get(THIS_MODULE))
>> @@ -84,6 +86,79 @@ static const struct vfio_device_ops vfio_fsl_mc_ops = {
>> .mmap = vfio_fsl_mc_mmap,
>> };
>>
>> +static int vfio_fsl_mc_bus_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
>> + unsigned long action, void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct vfio_fsl_mc_device *vdev = container_of(nb,
>> + struct vfio_fsl_mc_device, nb);
>> + struct device *dev = data;
>> + struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev = to_fsl_mc_device(dev);
>> + struct fsl_mc_device *mc_cont = to_fsl_mc_device(mc_dev->dev.parent);
>> +
>> + if (action == BUS_NOTIFY_ADD_DEVICE &&
>> + vdev->mc_dev == mc_cont) {
>> + mc_dev->driver_override = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s",
>> + vfio_fsl_mc_ops.name);
>> + if (!mc_dev->driver_override)
>> + dev_warn(dev, "VFIO_FSL_MC: Setting driver override for device in dprc %s failed\n",
>> + dev_name(&mc_cont->dev));
>> + else
>> + dev_info(dev, "VFIO_FSL_MC: Setting driver override for device in dprc %s\n",
>> + dev_name(&mc_cont->dev));
>
> Nit, some whitespace inconsistencies on the second line of each of
> these. I can fixup on commit if we don't find anything else worth a
> respin.
>
>> + } else if (action == BUS_NOTIFY_BOUND_DRIVER &&
>> + vdev->mc_dev == mc_cont) {
>> + struct fsl_mc_driver *mc_drv = to_fsl_mc_driver(dev->driver);
>> +
>> + if (mc_drv && mc_drv != &vfio_fsl_mc_driver)
>> + dev_warn(dev, "VFIO_FSL_MC: Object %s bound to driver %s while DPRC bound to vfio-fsl-mc\n",
>> + dev_name(dev), mc_drv->driver.name);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int vfio_fsl_mc_init_device(struct vfio_fsl_mc_device *vdev)
>> +{
>> + struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev = vdev->mc_dev;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + /* Non-dprc devices share mc_io from parent */
>> + if (!is_fsl_mc_bus_dprc(mc_dev)) {
>> + struct fsl_mc_device *mc_cont = to_fsl_mc_device(mc_dev->dev.parent);
>> +
>> + mc_dev->mc_io = mc_cont->mc_io;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + vdev->nb.notifier_call = vfio_fsl_mc_bus_notifier;
>> + ret = bus_register_notifier(&fsl_mc_bus_type, &vdev->nb);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + /* open DPRC, allocate a MC portal */
>> + ret = dprc_setup(mc_dev);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(&mc_dev->dev, "VFIO_FSL_MC: Failed to setup DPRC (%d)\n", ret);
>> + goto out_nc_unreg;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = dprc_scan_container(mc_dev, false);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(&mc_dev->dev, "VFIO_FSL_MC: Container scanning failed (%d)\n", ret);
>> + goto out_dprc_cleanup;
>> + }
>
> If I understand this correctly, we've setup the bus notifier to write
> the driver override as each sub-devices appear on the bus from this
> scan. When non-dprc devices are removed below, it appears we remove all
> their sub-devices. Is there a chance here that an error from the scan
> leaves residual sub-devices, ie. should we proceed the below
> dprc_cleanup() with a call to dprc_remove_devices() to be certain none
> remain? Thanks,
>
> Alex

Right, we should call dprc_remove_devices as well. I will respin another
version.

>
>
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +out_dprc_cleanup:
>> + dprc_cleanup(mc_dev);
>> +out_nc_unreg:
>> + bus_unregister_notifier(&fsl_mc_bus_type, &vdev->nb);
>> + vdev->nb.notifier_call = NULL;
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int vfio_fsl_mc_probe(struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev)
>> {
>> struct iommu_group *group;
>> @@ -110,8 +185,15 @@ static int vfio_fsl_mc_probe(struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev)
>> dev_err(dev, "VFIO_FSL_MC: Failed to add to vfio group\n");
>> goto out_group_put;
>> }
>> +
>> + ret = vfio_fsl_mc_init_device(vdev);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out_group_dev;
>> +
>> return 0;
>>
>> +out_group_dev:
>> + vfio_del_group_dev(dev);
>> out_group_put:
>> vfio_iommu_group_put(group, dev);
>> return ret;
>> @@ -126,6 +208,14 @@ static int vfio_fsl_mc_remove(struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev)
>> if (!vdev)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> + if (is_fsl_mc_bus_dprc(mc_dev)) {
>> + dprc_remove_devices(mc_dev, NULL, 0);
>> + dprc_cleanup(mc_dev);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (vdev->nb.notifier_call)
>> + bus_unregister_notifier(&fsl_mc_bus_type, &vdev->nb);
>> +
>> vfio_iommu_group_put(mc_dev->dev.iommu_group, dev);
>>
>> return 0;
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc_private.h b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc_private.h
>> index e79cc116f6b8..37d61eaa58c8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc_private.h
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/fsl-mc/vfio_fsl_mc_private.h
>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>>
>> struct vfio_fsl_mc_device {
>> struct fsl_mc_device *mc_dev;
>> + struct notifier_block nb;
>> };
>>
>> #endif /* VFIO_FSL_MC_PRIVATE_H */
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-05 19:25    [W:0.061 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site