>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +int vfio_platform_probe_acpi(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
>> + struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_device *adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
>> +
>> + if (!adev)
>> + return -EINVAL;
> -ENODEV seems to be commonly used in that case
ok
>> +
>> + vdev->acpihid = acpi_device_hid(adev);
>> + if (!vdev->acpihid) {
> can it return NULL? Seems to return dummy "device" or actual hid
>> + pr_err("VFIO: cannot find ACPI HID for %s\n",
>> + vdev->name);
>> + return -EINVAL;
> -ENODEV too?
sure
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +int vfio_platform_probe_acpi(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
>> + struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +int vfio_platform_probe_of(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
>> + struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = device_property_read_string(dev, "compatible",
>> + &vdev->compat);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_err("VFIO: cannot retrieve compat for %s\n",
>> + vdev->name);
>> + return -EINVAL;
> return ret instead.
ok
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> int vfio_platform_probe_common(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
>> struct device *dev)
>> {
>> @@ -550,14 +600,14 @@ int vfio_platform_probe_common(struct
>> vfio_platform_device *vdev,
>> if (!vdev)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - ret = device_property_read_string(dev, "compatible", &vdev->compat);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - pr_err("VFIO: cannot retrieve compat for %s\n", vdev->name);
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> - }
>> + ret = vfio_platform_probe_acpi(vdev, dev);
>> + if (ret)
>> + ret = vfio_platform_probe_of(vdev, dev);
>>
>> - vdev->device = dev;
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>>
>> + vdev->device = dev;
>> group = iommu_group_get(dev);
>> if (!group) {
>> pr_err("VFIO: No IOMMU group for device %s\n", vdev->name);
>> @@ -602,13 +652,21 @@ void __vfio_platform_register_reset(struct
>> vfio_platform_reset_node *node)
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__vfio_platform_register_reset);
>>
>> void vfio_platform_unregister_reset(const char *compat,
>> + const char *acpihid,
>> vfio_platform_reset_fn_t fn)
>> {
>> struct vfio_platform_reset_node *iter, *temp;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&driver_lock);
>> list_for_each_entry_safe(iter, temp, &reset_list, link) {
>> - if (!strcmp(iter->compat, compat) && (iter->reset == fn)) {
>> + if (acpihid && iter->acpihid &&
>> + !strcmp(iter->acpihid, acpihid) && (iter->reset == fn)) {
>> + list_del(&iter->link);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (compat && iter->compat &&
>> + !strcmp(iter->compat, compat) && (iter->reset == fn)) {
>> list_del(&iter->link);
>> break;
>> }
>
> in vfio_platform_get_reset, if the 1st vfio_platform_lookup_reset call
> does not return anything then we currently call
> request_module("vfio-reset:%s", vdev->compat);
>
> you need to handle the case where compat is not set but vdev->acpihid
> is, instead.
>
> currently the module alias is constructed with the compat only
> MODULE_ALIAS("vfio-reset:" compat);
>
> Looks you can define several ones ( for instance in
> drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c).
>
> If I am not wrong this currently would not work with
> vfio-platform-qcomhidma compiled as a module.
>
Good point. I happen to have both defined as the driver support both ACPI
and device-tree. That's why, I have never seen the problem during testing.
>>
>> -#define module_vfio_reset_handler(compat, reset) \
>> -MODULE_ALIAS("vfio-reset:" compat); \
>> -static int __init reset ## _module_init(void) \
>> -{ \
>> - vfio_platform_register_reset(compat, reset); \
>> - return 0; \
>> -}; \
>> -static void __exit reset ## _module_exit(void) \
>> -{ \
>> - vfio_platform_unregister_reset(compat, reset); \
>> -}; \
>> -module_init(reset ## _module_init); \
>> +#define module_vfio_reset_handler(compat, acpihid, reset) \
>> +MODULE_ALIAS("vfio-reset:" compat); \
> Here you need to handle alias for hid case I think
>
I'll add this and test different combinations where compat and acpihid are null.
#define module_vfio_reset_handler(compat, acpihid, reset) \
MODULE_ALIAS("vfio-reset:" compat); \
MODULE_ALIAS("vfio-reset:" acpihid); \
--
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
Foundation Collaborative Project
