On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 06:58:31PM +0530, Santosh Shukla wrote:
> So far virtio handle rw access for uio / ioport interface, This patch to
> extend
> the support for vfio interface. For that introducing private struct
> virtio_vfio_dev{
> - is_vfio
> - pci_dev
> };
> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com>
...
> +/* For vfio only */
> +struct virtio_vfio_dev {
> + bool is_vfio; /* True: vfio i/f,
> + * False: not a vfio i/f
Well, this is weird; you are adding a flag to tell whether it's a
vfio device __inside__ a vfio struct.
Back to the topic, this flag is not necessary to me: you can
check the pci_dev->kdrv flag.
> + */
> + struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev; /* vfio dev */
Note that I have already added this field into virtio_hw struct
at my latest virtio 1.0 pmd patchset.
While I told you before that you should not develop patches based
on my patcheset, I guess you can do that now. Since it should be
in good shape and close to be merged.
> +};
> +
> struct virtio_hw {
> struct virtqueue *cvq;
> uint32_t io_base;
> @@ -176,6 +186,7 @@ struct virtio_hw {
> uint8_t use_msix;
> uint8_t started;
> uint8_t mac_addr[ETHER_ADDR_LEN];
> + struct virtio_vfio_dev dev;
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -231,20 +242,65 @@ outl_p(unsigned int data, unsigned int port)
> #define VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR(hw, reg) \
> (unsigned short)((hw)->io_base + (reg))
>
> -#define VIRTIO_READ_REG_1(hw, reg) \
> - inb((VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg))))
> -#define VIRTIO_WRITE_REG_1(hw, reg, value) \
> - outb_p((unsigned char)(value), (VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg))))
> -
> -#define VIRTIO_READ_REG_2(hw, reg) \
> - inw((VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg))))
> -#define VIRTIO_WRITE_REG_2(hw, reg, value) \
> - outw_p((unsigned short)(value), (VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg))))
> -
> -#define VIRTIO_READ_REG_4(hw, reg) \
> - inl((VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg))))
> -#define VIRTIO_WRITE_REG_4(hw, reg, value) \
> - outl_p((unsigned int)(value), (VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg))))
> +#define VIRTIO_READ_REG_1(hw, reg) \
> +({ \
> + uint8_t ret; \
> + struct virtio_vfio_dev *vdev; \
> + (vdev) = (&(hw)->dev); \
> + (((vdev)->is_vfio) ? \
> + (ioport_inb(((vdev)->pci_dev), reg, &ret)) : \
> + ((ret) = (inb((VIRTIO_PCI_REG_ADDR((hw), (reg))))))); \
> + ret; \
> +})
It becomes unreadable. I'd suggest to define them as iniline
functions, and use "if .. else .." instead of "?:".
--yliu
