On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:16:50 -0400
ok...@codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2016-07-18 20:00, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:09:22 -0400
> > Sinan Kaya <ok...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The code is using the compatible DT string to associate a reset driver
> >> with the actual device itself. The compatible string does not exist on
> >> ACPI based systems. HID is the unique identifier for a device driver
> >> instead.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <ok...@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c | 69
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h | 1 +
> >> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> >> b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> >> index 6be92c3..a5299f6 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
> >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> >> */
> >>
> >> #include <linux/device.h>
> >> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> >> #include <linux/iommu.h>
> >> #include <linux/module.h>
> >> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> >> @@ -49,6 +50,32 @@ static vfio_platform_reset_fn_t
> >> vfio_platform_lookup_reset(const char *compat,
> >> return reset_fn;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int vfio_platform_acpi_probe(struct vfio_platform_device
> >> *vdev,
> >> + struct device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct acpi_device *adev;
> >> +
> >> + if (acpi_disabled)
> >> + return -EPERM;
> >> +
> >> + adev = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
> >
> > I didn't necessarily have a problem with this being set in the
> > declaration.
>
> I think this is better. If ACPI is disabled, it is dangerous to call an
> ACPI API.
Ok, fair enough.
> >
> >> + if (!adev) {
> >> + pr_err("VFIO: ACPI companion device not found for %s\n",
> >> + vdev->name);
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> >> + vdev->acpihid = acpi_device_hid(adev);
> >> + if (!vdev->acpihid) {
> >> + pr_err("VFIO: cannot find ACPI HID for %s\n",
> >> + vdev->name);
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> +#endif
> >> + return WARN_ON(!vdev->acpihid) ? -ENOENT : 0;
> >
> > ?!?! The point was that that entire if{} branch is unnecessary. The
> > WARN_ON handles the (impossible) case of !vdev->acpihid. We just need:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > vdev->acpihid = acpi_device_hid(adev);
> > #endif
> > return WARN_ON(!vdev->acpihid) ? -ENOENT : 0;
> >
>
> OK, got it now. I thought you were trying to get rid of #else
>
> > nit, might make sense to replace EPERM with ENOENT and use EINVAL here.
> >
>
> Sure, will take carr of it.
>
> Anything else I need to take care of?
Not that I see, maybe just send a new version of this patch if the
changes don't trickle through too much. Thanks,
Alex
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static bool vfio_platform_has_reset(struct vfio_platform_device
> >> *vdev)
> >> {
> >> return vdev->of_reset ? true : false;
> >> @@ -547,6 +574,37 @@ static const struct vfio_device_ops
> >> vfio_platform_ops = {
> >> .mmap = vfio_platform_mmap,
> >> };
> >>
> >> +int vfio_platform_of_probe(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 ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * There can be two kernel build combinations. One build where
> >> + * ACPI is not selected in Kconfig and another one with the ACPI
> >> Kconfig.
> >> + *
> >> + * In the first case, vfio_platform_acpi_probe will return since
> >> + * acpi_disabled is 1. DT user will not see any kind of messages from
> >> + * ACPI.
> >> + *
> >> + * In the second case, both DT and ACPI is compiled in but the system
> >> is
> >> + * booting with any of these combinations.
> >> + *
> >> + * If the firmware is DT type, then acpi_disabled is 1. The ACPI
> >> probe routine
> >> + * terminates immediately without any messages.
> >> + *
> >> + * If the firmware is ACPI type, then acpi_disabled is 0. All other
> >> checks are
> >> + * valid checks. We cannot claim that this system is DT.
> >> + */
> >> int vfio_platform_probe_common(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
> >> struct device *dev)
> >> {
> >> @@ -556,11 +614,12 @@ 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_acpi_probe(vdev, dev);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + ret = vfio_platform_of_probe(vdev, dev);
> >> +
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >>
> >> vdev->device = dev;
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h
> >> b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h
> >> index 71ed7d1..ba9e4f8 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h
> >> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ struct vfio_platform_device {
> >> struct mutex igate;
> >> struct module *parent_module;
> >> const char *compat;
> >> + const char *acpihid;
> >> struct module *reset_module;
> >> struct device *device;
> >>
