Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] AMD IOMMU: drop amd_iommu_setup_hwdom_device()

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 08:04:16AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> By moving its bridge special casing to amd_iommu_add_device(), we can
> pass the latter to setup_hwdom_pci_devices() and at once consistently
> handle bridges discovered at boot time as well as such reported by Dom0
> later on.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>

With one nit:

> @@ -490,15 +465,25 @@ static int amd_iommu_add_device(u8 devfn
>  {
>      struct amd_iommu *iommu;
>      u16 bdf;
> +
>      if ( !pdev->domain )
>          return -EINVAL;
>  
>      bdf = PCI_BDF2(pdev->bus, pdev->devfn);
>      iommu = find_iommu_for_device(pdev->seg, bdf);
> -    if ( !iommu )
> +    if ( unlikely(!iommu) )
>      {
> -        AMD_IOMMU_DEBUG("Fail to find iommu."
> -                        " %04x:%02x:%02x.%u cannot be assigned to dom%d\n",
> +        /* Filter bridge devices. */
> +        if ( pdev->type == DEV_TYPE_PCI_HOST_BRIDGE &&
> +             is_hardware_domain(pdev->domain) )
> +        {
> +            AMD_IOMMU_DEBUG("Skipping host bridge %04x:%02x:%02x.%u\n",
> +                            pdev->seg, PCI_BUS(bdf), PCI_SLOT(bdf),
> +                            PCI_FUNC(bdf));

Is there any reason to use bdf instead of pdev->bus and devfn? I'm
asking because that's done below, so I would rather use that for
coherency.

Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel