On 15/07/2020 14:46, Oliver O'Halloran wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:41 PM Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15/07/2020 14:21, Oliver O'Halloran wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:00 PM Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or we could just skip setting
>>>>
>>>> ppc_md.pcibios_sriov_enable = pnv_pcibios_sriov_enable;
>>>>
>>>> for uninteresting platforms in pnv_pci_init_ioda_phb().
>>>
>>> I don't think so. ppc_md is per-platform, not per-PHB andw e still
>>> have to deal with a mixture of IODA/NVLink/OpenCAPI PHBs on a single
>>> system.
>>
>> NVLink/OpenCAPI won't have SRIOV devices.
>
> ...OR WILL THEY?
NO!
>> Other types won't appear on
>> the same platform simultaneously. It is not too clean, yes.
>
> Sure, my point is that's a per-PHB setting rather than a per-platform
> one so we should set it up like that.
and my point is that you did too good job getting rid of IODA1 vs IODA2
checks to keep this check. But ok.
>
>>> We could make it a callback in pnv_phb, but it seemed like
>>> more indirection than it's worth.
>>
>> I genuinely dislike how we use ppc_md so removing things from it is
>> definitely a good thing.
>
> you wouldn't be able to get rid of it. We'd have something like what
> we have for the existing pcibios calls where there's a "generic" one
> that bounces it to a member of pci_controller_ops, which then bounces
> it to the pnv_phb method. It's bad and I hate it.
No argument here...
--
Alexey
