On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:45:00AM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > On 02.03.23 11:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:28:44AM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > > wrote: > > > On 02.03.23 00:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:03:51PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > > > > wrote: > > > > > To be used in further patch to identify the device hot-plugged into > > > > > pcie-root-port. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy<vsement...@yandex-team.ru> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Anton Kuchin<antonkuc...@yandex-team.ru> > > > > Wait a second does this work for multifunction devices correctly? > > > > > > > > > > I thought about that and I'm just lost:) > > > > > > Could several (multifunction?) devices be plugged into one pcie-root-port > > > device? > > > > One device per port but one multifunction device is represented as multiple > > PCIDevice structures. > > So, it should be OK to send _one_ event for that multifunction device, and > the code is shpc_reset() is OK, but reporting "Several child devices found" > is bad idea?
I don't know about your new event, we are discussing it separately. yes all functions are removed together normally on real hardware. > So, if I change the logic from pci_find_the_only_child() to > pci_find_first_child() is it OK? Yes though I don't like this name either - need to make it clear that multifunction is ok, multiple unrelated devices aren't. > > > > > Same question for SHPC slots. For example, shpc_free_devices_in_slot() > > > looks like we can have several devices in one slot.. > > > On the other hand, in shpc_reset() we have construction > > > shpc->sec_bus->devices[PCI_DEVFN(SHPC_IDX_TO_PCI(i), 0)] to access the > > > device in slot. The only one device. > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Vladimir > > > > Same thing. > > > > ... and let's not get started about sriov and ari ... > > > > -- > Best regards, > Vladimir
