Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 11:12 -0500, Bandan Das wrote:
>> Certain cards such as the Broadcom BCM57810 have rom quirks
>> that exhibit unstable system behavior duing device assignment. In
>> the particular case of 57810, rom execution hangs and if a FLR
>> follows, the device becomes inoperable until a power cycle.
>>
>> This is a simple change to disable rom loading for such cards.
>> In terms of implementation change, rombar now has a default value
>> of 2. Existing code shouldn't be affected by changing the default value
>> of rombar since all relevant decisions only rely on whether rom_bar is
>> zero or non-zero. The motivation behind this change is that in
>> certain cases such as a firmware upgrade, the user might
>> want to override this blacklisting behavior and can do so
>> by running with rombar = 1. Same reasoning applies to running with
>> romfile.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bandan Das <b...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/misc/vfio.c | 63
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> hw/pci/pci.c | 3 ++-
>> 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/misc/vfio.c b/hw/misc/vfio.c
>> index 8db182f..f5021f4 100644
>> --- a/hw/misc/vfio.c
>> +++ b/hw/misc/vfio.c
>> @@ -209,6 +209,16 @@ typedef struct VFIOGroup {
>> QLIST_ENTRY(VFIOGroup) container_next;
>> } VFIOGroup;
>>
>> +typedef struct VFIORomQList {
>> + unsigned int vendor_id;
>> + unsigned int device_id;
>
> uint16_t
Oops! yes, indeed.
>> +} VFIORomQList;
>> +
>> +static const VFIORomQList romqdevlist[] = {
>> + /* Broadcom BCM 57810 */
>> + { 0x14e4, 0x168e }
>> +};
>
> Naming of these doesn't make sense, there's neither a QLIST nor are
> these qdevs. We're creating a blacklist, so I'd probably name the array
> VFIORomBlacklist and the entry can simply be a VFIOBlacklistEntry.
The naming signified abbreviation of VFIORomQuirkList and romquirkdevicelist.
Obviously, it ended up signifying something else altogether. Your suggestion
sounds fine and I will change it in the next version.
>> +
>> #define MSIX_CAP_LENGTH 12
>>
>> static QLIST_HEAD(, VFIOContainer)
>> @@ -1197,16 +1207,69 @@ static const MemoryRegionOps vfio_rom_ops = {
>> .endianness = DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN,
>> };
>>
>> +static bool vfio_blacklist_opt_rom(VFIODevice *vdev)
>> +{
>> + PCIDevice *pdev = &vdev->pdev;
>> + unsigned int vendor_id, device_id;
>
> uint16_t
>
>> + int count = 0;
>> +
>> + vendor_id = pci_get_word(pdev->config + PCI_VENDOR_ID);
>> + device_id = pci_get_word(pdev->config + PCI_DEVICE_ID);
>> +
>> + while (count < ARRAY_SIZE(romqdevlist)) {
>> + if (romqdevlist[count].vendor_id == vendor_id &&
>> + romqdevlist[count].device_id == device_id) {
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> + count++;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> static void vfio_pci_size_rom(VFIODevice *vdev)
>> {
>> uint32_t orig, size = cpu_to_le32((uint32_t)PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK);
>> off_t offset = vdev->config_offset + PCI_ROM_ADDRESS;
>> char name[32];
>> + int rom_quirk = 0;
>
> bool? Actually, we don't even need this variable, just call the
> blacklist test function inline. There's not even a path that would call
> it twice.
Yeah, it is actually used twice below - Once for the case
where romfile is set and once for when rombar is set. If you
prefer, I can re-word this so that it's called once and displays
a common message instead of different ones as in the current
version.
>> +
>> + if (vfio_blacklist_opt_rom(vdev)) {
>> + rom_quirk = 1;
>> + }
>>
>> if (vdev->pdev.romfile || !vdev->pdev.rom_bar) {
>> + /* Since pci handles romfile, just print a message and return */
>> + if (rom_quirk && vdev->pdev.romfile) {
>> + error_printf("Warning : Device at %04x:%02x:%02x.%x "
>> + "is known to cause system instability issues
>> during "
>> + "option rom execution. "
>> + "Proceeding anyway since user specified romfile\n",
>> + vdev->host.domain, vdev->host.bus, vdev->host.slot,
>> + vdev->host.function);
>> + }
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> + if (rom_quirk && vdev->pdev.rom_bar) {
>> + if (vdev->pdev.rom_bar == 1) {
>> + error_printf("Warning : Device at %04x:%02x:%02x.%x "
>> + "is known to cause system instability issues
>> during "
>> + "option rom execution. "
>> + "Proceeding anyway since user specified
>> rombar=1\n",
>> + vdev->host.domain, vdev->host.bus, vdev->host.slot,
>> + vdev->host.function);
>> + } else {
>> + error_printf("Warning : Rom loading for device at "
>> + "%04x:%02x:%02x.%x has been disabled due to "
>> + "system instability issues. "
>> + "Specify rombar=1 or romfile to force\n",
>> + vdev->host.domain, vdev->host.bus, vdev->host.slot,
>> + vdev->host.function);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> /*
>> * Use the same size ROM BAR as the physical device. The contents
>> * will get filled in later when the guest tries to read it.
>> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci.c b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> index 4e0701d..65766d8 100644
>> --- a/hw/pci/pci.c
>> +++ b/hw/pci/pci.c
>> @@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ static void pci_bus_finalize(Object *obj);
>> static Property pci_props[] = {
>> DEFINE_PROP_PCI_DEVFN("addr", PCIDevice, devfn, -1),
>> DEFINE_PROP_STRING("romfile", PCIDevice, romfile),
>> - DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("rombar", PCIDevice, rom_bar, 1),
>> + /* 0 = disable, 1 = user requested (on), 2 = default (on) */
>> + DEFINE_PROP_UINT32("rombar", PCIDevice, rom_bar, 2),
>> DEFINE_PROP_BIT("multifunction", PCIDevice, cap_present,
>> QEMU_PCI_CAP_MULTIFUNCTION_BITNR, false),
>> DEFINE_PROP_BIT("command_serr_enable", PCIDevice, cap_present,
>
> This should be a separate patch. Thanks,
Umm.. isn't this part of "one logical change" and be grouped together ?
Or having it in a different patch makes maintainer's work easy ?
> Alex
