On 12.06.2025 11:29, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> --- a/xen/include/xen/vpci.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/vpci.h
> @@ -13,11 +13,12 @@ typedef uint32_t vpci_read_t(const struct pci_dev *pdev,
> unsigned int reg,
> typedef void vpci_write_t(const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int reg,
> uint32_t val, void *data);
>
> -typedef int vpci_register_init_t(struct pci_dev *dev);
> -
> -#define VPCI_PRIORITY_HIGH "1"
> -#define VPCI_PRIORITY_MIDDLE "5"
> -#define VPCI_PRIORITY_LOW "9"
> +typedef struct {
> + unsigned int id;
> + bool is_ext;
> + int (*init)(struct pci_dev *pdev);
> + int (*cleanup)(struct pci_dev *pdev);
Is const really not possible to add to at least one of these two?
> +} vpci_capability_t;
As you have it here, ...
> @@ -29,9 +30,22 @@ typedef int vpci_register_init_t(struct pci_dev *dev);
> */
> #define VPCI_MAX_VIRT_DEV (PCI_SLOT(~0) + 1)
>
> -#define REGISTER_VPCI_INIT(x, p) \
> - static vpci_register_init_t *const x##_entry \
> - __used_section(".data.vpci." p) = (x)
> +#define REGISTER_VPCI_CAPABILITY(cap, finit, fclean, ext) \
> + static const vpci_capability_t finit##_t = { \
... _t suffixes generally designate types. I don't think we should abuse
that suffix for an identifier of a variable.
Jan
