Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCHv4 11/11] libqos: Change PCI accessors to take opaque BAR handle

[Greg Kurz]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:19:47 +1100
David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:23:51PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:19:52 +1100
> > David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> > > The usual use model for the libqos PCI functions is to map a specific PCI
> > > BAR using qpci_iomap() then pass the returned token into IO accessor
> > > functions.  This, and the fact that iomap() returns a (void *) which
> > > actually contains a PCI space address, kind of suggests that the return
> > > value from iomap is supposed to be an opaque token.
> > > 
> > > ..except that the callers expect to be able to add offsets to it.  Which
> > > also assumes the compiler will support pointer arithmetic on a (void *),
> > > and treat it as working with byte offsets.
> > > 
> > > To clarify this situation change iomap() and the IO accessors to take
> > > a definitely opaque BAR handle (enforced with a wrapper struct) along with
> > > an offset within the BAR.  This changes both the functions and all the
> > > callers.
> > > 
> > > Asserts that iomap() returns non-NULL are removed in some places; iomap()
> > > already asserts if it can't map the BAR
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >  tests/ahci-test.c         |   4 +-
> > >  tests/e1000e-test.c       |   7 +-
> > >  tests/ide-test.c          | 176 
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > >  tests/ivshmem-test.c      |  16 ++---
> > >  tests/libqos/ahci.c       |   3 +-
> > >  tests/libqos/ahci.h       |   6 +-
> > >  tests/libqos/pci.c        | 151 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > >  tests/libqos/pci.h        |  50 ++++++++-----
> > >  tests/libqos/usb.c        |   6 +-
> > >  tests/libqos/usb.h        |   2 +-
> > >  tests/libqos/virtio-pci.c | 102 ++++++++++++++-------------
> > >  tests/libqos/virtio-pci.h |   2 +-
> > >  tests/rtl8139-test.c      |  10 ++-
> > >  tests/tco-test.c          |  80 ++++++++++-----------
> > >  tests/usb-hcd-ehci-test.c |   5 +-
> > >  15 files changed, 309 insertions(+), 311 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tests/ahci-test.c b/tests/ahci-test.c
> > > index 9c0adce..4358631 100644
> > > --- a/tests/ahci-test.c
> > > +++ b/tests/ahci-test.c
> > > @@ -90,12 +90,12 @@ static void verify_state(AHCIQState *ahci)
> > >      g_assert_cmphex(ahci_fingerprint, ==, ahci->fingerprint);
> > >  
> > >      /* If we haven't initialized, this is as much as can be validated. */
> > > -    if (!ahci->hba_base) {
> > > +    if (!ahci->hba_bar.addr) {  
> > 
> > Isn't ahci->hba_bar supposed to be opaque ?  
> 
> Ah, good point, missed that one.  And that test isn't even right, with
> the INVALID_BAR stuff.
> 

Indeed.

> > >          return;
> > >      }  
> > 
> > Unrelated to this patch, does it make sense to call verify_state() if
> > ahci_pci_enable() hasn't been called before ? Shouldn't we assert instead ? 
> >  
> 
> I'm pretty sure it is only called after PCI initialization, so I think
> we should just remove the check.
> 
> > >      hba_base = (uint64_t)qpci_config_readl(ahci->dev, 
> > > PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_5);
> > > -    hba_stored = (uint64_t)(uintptr_t)ahci->hba_base;
> > > +    hba_stored = ahci->hba_bar.addr;
> > >      g_assert_cmphex(hba_base, ==, hba_stored);  
> > 
> > Again since ahci->hba_bar is opaque, is it right to do that check here ?  
> 
> Not, really no.  I was aware of that one, but decided to let it go
> since it's just one pretty specific check.
> 
> But then again, if I'm fixing other things in AHCI, maybe I might as
> well fix it to read the actual BAR register before the migration.
> 
> > I have another question about QPCI_BAR_INVALID far below (patch is
> > long :)  
> 
> 
> [snip]
> > > +struct QPCIBar {
> > > +    uint64_t addr;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const QPCIBar QPCI_BAR_INVALID = {
> > > +    .addr = (uint64_t)-1ULL,
> > > +};
> > > +  
> > 
> > In v2, you had:
> > 
> > void qpci_msix_disable(QPCIDevice *dev)
> > {
> > [...]
> >     memset(&dev->msix_table_bar, 0, sizeof(dev->msix_table_bar));
> >     memset(&dev->msix_pba_bar, 0, sizeof(dev->msix_pba_bar));  
> > [...]
> > }
> > 
> > and now they get filled with 0xff... is there a reason ?  
> 
> Yes.  I realized an address of 0 is a bad way of marking an invalid
> BAR, because it's actually a semi-plausible real BAR value.  For
> example getting a legacy IO "BAR" at offset 0 would give you that.
> 

Shouldn't all QPCIBar structures be initialized to BAR_INVALID then ?

pgpH_Xo4jep8j.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature