On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 01:33:20PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:08:44 +0100 > Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 03/07/17 10:39, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:07:19 +0100 > > > Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >> When looking to instantiate a TYPE_FW_CFG_MEM or TYPE_FW_CFG_IO device > > >> to be > > >> able to wire it up differently, it is much more convenient for the > > >> caller to > > >> instantiate the device and have the fw_cfg default files already > > >> preloaded > > >> during realize. > > >> > > >> Move fw_cfg_init1() to the end of both the fw_cfg_mem_realize() and > > >> fw_cfg_io_realize() functions so it no longer needs to be called manually > > >> when instantiating the device, and also rename it to > > >> fw_cfg_common_realize() > > >> which better describes its new purpose. > > >> > > >> Since it is now the responsibility of the machine to wire up the fw_cfg > > >> device > > >> it is necessary to introduce a object_property_add_child() call into > > >> fw_cfg_init_io() and fw_cfg_init_mem() to link the fw_cfg device to the > > >> root > > >> machine object as before. > > >> > > >> Finally we can now convert the asserts() preventing multiple fw_cfg > > >> devices > > >> and unparented fw_cfg devices being instantiated and replace them with > > >> proper > > >> error reporting at realize time. This allows us to remove FW_CFG_NAME and > > >> FW_CFG_PATH since they are no longer required. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> > > >> --- > > >> hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > >> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> diff --git a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c > > >> index 2291121..31029ac 100644 > > >> --- a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c > > >> +++ b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c > > >> @@ -37,9 +37,6 @@ > > >> > > >> #define FW_CFG_FILE_SLOTS_DFLT 0x20 > > >> > > >> -#define FW_CFG_NAME "fw_cfg" > > >> -#define FW_CFG_PATH "/machine/" FW_CFG_NAME > > >> - > > >> #define TYPE_FW_CFG "fw_cfg" > > >> #define TYPE_FW_CFG_IO "fw_cfg_io" > > >> #define TYPE_FW_CFG_MEM "fw_cfg_mem" > > >> @@ -920,19 +917,22 @@ static int fw_cfg_unattached_at_realize(void) > > >> } > > >> > > >> > > >> -static void fw_cfg_init1(DeviceState *dev) > > >> +static void fw_cfg_common_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) > > >> { > > >> FWCfgState *s = FW_CFG(dev); > > >> MachineState *machine = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine()); > > >> uint32_t version = FW_CFG_VERSION; > > >> > > >> - assert(!object_resolve_path(FW_CFG_PATH, NULL)); > > >> - > > >> - object_property_add_child(OBJECT(machine), FW_CFG_NAME, OBJECT(s), > > >> NULL); > > >> - > > >> - qdev_init_nofail(dev); > > >> + if (!fw_cfg_find()) { > > > maybe add comment that here, that fw_cfg_find() will return NULL if more > > > than > > > 1 device is found. > > > > This should be the same behaviour as before, i.e. a NULL means that the > > fw_cfg device couldn't be found. It seems intuitive to me from the name > > of the function exactly what it does, so I don't find the lack of > > comment too confusing. Does anyone else have any thoughts here? > intuitive meaning from the function name would be return NULL if nothing were > found, > however it's not the case here. > > taking in account that fwcfg in not user creatable device how about: > > diff --git a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c > index 316fca9..8f6eef8 100644 > --- a/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c > +++ b/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c > @@ -1014,7 +1014,10 @@ FWCfgState *fw_cfg_init_mem(hwaddr ctl_addr, hwaddr > data_addr) > > FWCfgState *fw_cfg_find(void) > { > - return FW_CFG(object_resolve_path(FW_CFG_PATH, NULL)); > + bool ambig = false; > + FWCfgState *f = FW_CFG(object_resolve_path_type("", TYPE_FW_CFG, > &ambig)); > + assert(!ambig); > + return f; > } > > or if we must to print user friendly error and fail realize gracefully > (not sure why) just add errp argument to function so it could report > error back to caller, then places that do not care much about graceful > exit would use error_abort as argument and realize would use > its local_error/errp argument.
I don't disagree with adding the assert(), but it looks like making fw_cfg_find() return NULL if there are multiple devices can be useful for realize. In this case, it looks like Mark is relying on that in fw_cfg_common_realize(): if multiple devices are created, fw_cfg_find() will return NULL, and realize will fail. This sounds like a more graceful way to handle multiple-device creation than crashing on fw_cfg_find(). This is the solution used by find_vmgenid_dev()/vmgenid_realize(), BTW. Either way, we have to choose: either we make fw_cfg_find() crash when multiple devices exist (in this case, the fw_cfg_find() call on realize will be useless), or we make it return NULL and document it very clearly. > > > > >> + error_setg(errp, "at most one %s device is permitted", > > >> TYPE_FW_CFG); > > > s/TYPE_FW_CFG/object_get_typename()/ > > > so it would print leaf type name I disagree. We allow at most one fw_cfg device (it doesn't matter which type), not at most one device of each leaf type. Saying "at most one fw_cfg_mem device is permitted" if 1 fw_cfg_io and 1 fw_cfg_mem device is created would be misleading. > > > > Previously the code would add the device to the machine at FW_CFG_PATH > > which was fixed at /machine/fw_cfg regardless of whether it was > > fw_cfg_io or fw_cfg_mem type (see the top of fw_cfg.c). > > > > This was a deliberate attempt to preserve the existing behaviour and if > > we were to give the leaf type name I think this would be misleading, > > since it implies you could have one fw_cfg_io and one fw_cfg_mem which > > isn't correct. > I don't have strong preference here, considering that it's > hardcoded in board (not user specified) device, > developer that stumbles upon error should be able to dig out which > concrete type caused it. > > > >> + return; > > >> + } > > >> > > >> - assert(!fw_cfg_unattached_at_realize()); > > >> + if (fw_cfg_unattached_at_realize()) { > > > as I pointed out in v6, this condition will always be false, > > > I suggest to drop 4/6 patch and this hunk here so it won't to confuse > > > readers with assumption that condition might succeed. > > > > Definitely look more closely at the fw_cfg_unattached_at_realize() > > implementation in patch 4. You'll see that the check to determine if the > > device is attached does not check obj->parent but checks to see if the > > device exists under /machine/unattached which is what the > > device_set_realised() does if the device doesn't have a parent. > looking more fw_cfg_unattached_at_realize(), > returns true if fwcfg is direct child of/machine/unattached > meaning implicit parent assignment. > > As result, above condition essentially forbids having fwcfg under > /machine/unattached and forces user to explicitly set parent > outside of /machine/unattached or be a child of some other device. > > Is this your intent (why)? I'm confused by this part as well. I still don't see the point of fw_cfg_unattached_at_realize(), I need to re-read the patches and commit messages to try to understand that. If we are changing fw_cfg_find() to not care about the fw_cfg device location, we don't need to care if it's in /machine/unattached or not. > [...] -- Eduardo