On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:46:47 +0000
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:32:01 +0000
> Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > On 2/11/21 5:16 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:44:59 +0000
> > > Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > >> On 12/10/20 2:28 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > >>> Since x86 had a special need for registering tons of special I/O ports,
> > >>> we had an ioport__setup_arch() callback, to allow each architecture
> > >>> to do the same. As it turns out no one uses it beside x86, so we remove
> > >>> that unnecessary abstraction.
> > >>>
> > >>> The generic function was registered via a device_base_init() call, so
> > >>> we just do the same for the x86 specific function only, and can remove
> > >>> the unneeded ioport__setup_arch().
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> arm/ioport.c | 5 -----
> > >>> include/kvm/ioport.h | 1 -
> > >>> ioport.c | 28 ----------------------------
> > >>> mips/kvm.c | 5 -----
> > >>> powerpc/ioport.c | 6 ------
> > >>> x86/ioport.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >>> 6 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/arm/ioport.c b/arm/ioport.c
> > >>> index 2f0feb9a..24092c9d 100644
> > >>> --- a/arm/ioport.c
> > >>> +++ b/arm/ioport.c
> > >>> @@ -1,11 +1,6 @@
> > >>> #include "kvm/ioport.h"
> > >>> #include "kvm/irq.h"
> > >>>
> > >>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> -{
> > >>> - return 0;
> > >>> -}
> > >>> -
> > >>> void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq)
> > >>> {
> > >>> *irq = irq__alloc_line();
> > >>> diff --git a/include/kvm/ioport.h b/include/kvm/ioport.h
> > >>> index 039633f7..d0213541 100644
> > >>> --- a/include/kvm/ioport.h
> > >>> +++ b/include/kvm/ioport.h
> > >>> @@ -35,7 +35,6 @@ struct ioport_operations {
> > >>> enum irq_type));
> > >>> };
> > >>>
> > >>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm);
> > >>> void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq);
> > >>>
> > >>> int __must_check ioport__register(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port, struct ioport_operations *ops,
> > >>> diff --git a/ioport.c b/ioport.c
> > >>> index 844a832d..667e8386 100644
> > >>> --- a/ioport.c
> > >>> +++ b/ioport.c
> > >>> @@ -158,21 +158,6 @@ int ioport__unregister(struct kvm *kvm, u16 port)
> > >>> return 0;
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> -static void ioport__unregister_all(void)
> > >>> -{
> > >>> - struct ioport *entry;
> > >>> - struct rb_node *rb;
> > >>> - struct rb_int_node *rb_node;
> > >>> -
> > >>> - rb = rb_first(&ioport_tree);
> > >>> - while (rb) {
> > >>> - rb_node = rb_int(rb);
> > >>> - entry = ioport_node(rb_node);
> > >>> - ioport_unregister(&ioport_tree, entry);
> > >>> - rb = rb_first(&ioport_tree);
> > >>> - }
> > >>> -}
> > >> I get the impression this is a rebasing artifact. The commit message doesn't
> > >> mention anything about removing ioport__exit() -> ioport__unregister_all(), and as
> > >> far as I can tell it's still needed because there are places other than
> > >> ioport__setup_arch() from where ioport__register() is called.
> > > I agree that the commit message is a bit thin on this fact, but the
> > > functionality of ioport__unregister_all() is now in
> > > x86/ioport.c:ioport__remove_arch(). I think removing ioport__init()
> > > without removing ioport__exit() as well would look very weird, if not
> > > hackish.
> >
> > Not necessarily. ioport__unregister_all() removes the ioports added by
> > x86/ioport.c::ioport__setup_arch(), *plus* ioports added by different devices,
> > like serial, rtc, virtio-pci and vfio-pci (which are used by arm/arm64).
>
> Right, indeed. Not that it really matters, since we are about to exit
> anyway, but it looks indeed I need to move this to a generic teardown
> method, or actually just keep that part here in this file.
>
> Will give this a try.
Well, now having a closer look I needed to remove this from here,
because this whole file will go away.
To keep the current functionality, we would need to add it to mmio.c,
and interestingly we don't do any kind of similar cleanup there for the
MMIO regions (probably this is kvmtool exiting anyway, see above).
I will see if I can introduce it there, for good measure.
Cheers,
Andre
>
> Thanks!
> Andre
>
> > >
> > > I can amend the commit message to mention this, or is there anything
> > > else I missed?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andre
> > >
> > >>> -
> > >>> static const char *to_direction(int direction)
> > >>> {
> > >>> if (direction == KVM_EXIT_IO_IN)
> > >>> @@ -220,16 +205,3 @@ out:
> > >>>
> > >>> return !kvm->cfg.ioport_debug;
> > >>> }
> > >>> -
> > >>> -int ioport__init(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> -{
> > >>> - return ioport__setup_arch(kvm);
> > >>> -}
> > >>> -dev_base_init(ioport__init);
> > >>> -
> > >>> -int ioport__exit(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> -{
> > >>> - ioport__unregister_all();
> > >>> - return 0;
> > >>> -}
> > >>> -dev_base_exit(ioport__exit);
> > >>> diff --git a/mips/kvm.c b/mips/kvm.c
> > >>> index 26355930..e110e5d5 100644
> > >>> --- a/mips/kvm.c
> > >>> +++ b/mips/kvm.c
> > >>> @@ -100,11 +100,6 @@ void kvm__irq_trigger(struct kvm *kvm, int irq)
> > >>> die_perror("KVM_IRQ_LINE ioctl");
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> -{
> > >>> - return 0;
> > >>> -}
> > >>> -
> > >>> bool kvm__arch_cpu_supports_vm(void)
> > >>> {
> > >>> return true;
> > >>> diff --git a/powerpc/ioport.c b/powerpc/ioport.c
> > >>> index 0c188b61..a5cff4ee 100644
> > >>> --- a/powerpc/ioport.c
> > >>> +++ b/powerpc/ioport.c
> > >>> @@ -12,12 +12,6 @@
> > >>>
> > >>> #include <stdlib.h>
> > >>>
> > >>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> -{
> > >>> - /* PPC has no legacy ioports to set up */
> > >>> - return 0;
> > >>> -}
> > >>> -
> > >>> void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq)
> > >>> {
> > >>> }
> > >>> diff --git a/x86/ioport.c b/x86/ioport.c
> > >>> index 7ad7b8f3..8c5c7699 100644
> > >>> --- a/x86/ioport.c
> > >>> +++ b/x86/ioport.c
> > >>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ void ioport__map_irq(u8 *irq)
> > >>> {
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> -int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> +static int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> {
> > >>> int r;
> > >>>
> > >>> @@ -150,3 +150,26 @@ int ioport__setup_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>>
> > >>> return 0;
> > >>> }
> > >>> +dev_base_init(ioport__setup_arch);
> > >>> +
> > >>> +static int ioport__remove_arch(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x510);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x402);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x03D5);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x03D4);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0378);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0278);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00F0);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00ED);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, IOPORT_DBG);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00C0);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x00A0);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0092);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0040);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0020);
> > >>> + ioport__unregister(kvm, 0x0000);
> > >>> +
> > >>> + return 0;
> > >>> +}
> > >>> +dev_base_exit(ioport__remove_arch);
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
