On 10/6/23 10:38, Joao Martins wrote:
On 02/10/2023 16:12, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
Hello Joao,
On 6/22/23 23:48, Joao Martins wrote:
From: Yi Liu <yi.l....@intel.com>
Add a pci_setup_iommu_ops() that uses a newly added structure
(PCIIOMMUOps) instead of using PCIIOMMUFunc. The old pci_setup_iommu()
that uses PCIIOMMUFunc is still kept for other IOMMUs to get an
an address space for a PCI device in vendor specific way.
In preparation to expand to supplying vIOMMU attributes, add a
alternate helper pci_setup_iommu_ops() to setup the PCI device IOMMU.
For now the PCIIOMMUOps just defines the address_space, but it will
be extended to have another callback.
Signed-off-by: Yi Liu <yi.l....@intel.com>
[joao: Massage commit message and subject, and make it a complementary
rather than changing every single consumer of pci_setup_iommu()]
Signed-off-by: Joao Martins <joao.m.mart...@oracle.com>
---
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210302203827.437645-5-yi.l....@intel.com/
---
include/hw/pci/pci.h | 7 +++++++
include/hw/pci/pci_bus.h | 1 +
hw/pci/pci.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/hw/pci/pci.h b/include/hw/pci/pci.h
index e6d0574a2999..f59aef5a329a 100644
--- a/include/hw/pci/pci.h
+++ b/include/hw/pci/pci.h
@@ -368,6 +368,13 @@ typedef AddressSpace *(*PCIIOMMUFunc)(PCIBus *, void *,
int);
AddressSpace *pci_device_iommu_address_space(PCIDevice *dev);
void pci_setup_iommu(PCIBus *bus, PCIIOMMUFunc fn, void *opaque);
+typedef struct PCIIOMMUOps PCIIOMMUOps;
+struct PCIIOMMUOps {
+ AddressSpace * (*get_address_space)(PCIBus *bus,
+ void *opaque, int32_t devfn);
+};
+void pci_setup_iommu_ops(PCIBus *bus, const PCIIOMMUOps *iommu_ops, void
*opaque);
+
I think you should first convert all PHBs to PCIIOMMUOps to avoid all the
tests as below and adapt pci_setup_iommu_ops() with the new parameter.
OK, that's Yi's original patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210302203827.437645-5-yi.l....@intel.com/
I went with this one is that 1) it might take eons to get every single IOMMU
maintainer ack; and 2) it would allow each IOMMU to move at its own speed
specially as I can't test most of the other ones. essentially iterative, rather
than invasive change? Does that make sense?
I think it is ok to make global changes to replace a function by a struct
of ops. This is not major (unless the extra indirection has a major perf
impact on some platforms). Getting acks from everyone will be difficult
since some PHBs are orphans.
C.
