On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Yuanhan Liu
> <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> yes, I'll replace is_vfio with pci_dev->kdrv.
>
>>> + */
>>> + 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.
>
> Okay, Before rebasing my v5 patch on your 1.0 virtio patch, I like to
> understand which qemu version support virtio 1.0 spec?
Ignore, I figured out in other thread,
qemu version >2.4, such as 2.4.1 or 2.5.0.
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> 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 "?:".
>>
Ok.
>> --yliu
