Hi Arnd,
On 10/15/2015 02:12 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 01:21:55PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thursday 15 October 2015 10:08:02 Eric Auger wrote:
>>> Hi Arnd,
>>> On 10/14/2015 05:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 14 October 2015 15:33:12 Eric Auger wrote:
>>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c
>>>>> @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ static const struct vfio_platform_reset_combo reset_lookup_table[] = {
>>>>> .reset_function_name = "vfio_platform_calxedaxgmac_reset",
>>>>> .module_name = "vfio-platform-calxedaxgmac",
>>>>> },
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + .compat = "amd,xgbe-seattle-v1a",
>>>>> + .reset_function_name = "vfio_platform_amdxgbe_reset",
>>>>> + .module_name = "vfio-platform-amdxgbe",
>>>>> + },
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> static void vfio_platform_get_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is causing build errors for me when CONFIG_MODULES is disabled.
>>> Sorry about that and thanks for reporting the issue
>>>>
>>>> Could this please be restructured so vfio_platform_get_reset does
>>>> not attempt to call __symbol_get() but instead has the drivers
>>>> register themselves properly to a subsystem?
>>> OK
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate about "has the drivers register themselves properly
>>> to a subsystem".
>>>
>>> My first proposal when coping with this problematic of being able to add
>>> reset plugins to the vfio-platform driver was to create new drivers per
>>> device requiring reset. but this was considered painful for end-users,
>>> who needed to be aware of the right driver to bind - and I think that
>>> makes sense - (https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/568) .
>>
>> Having multiple drivers indeed sucks, but your current approach isn't
>> that much better, as you still have two modules that are used to driver
>> the same hardware.
>>
>> I would expect that the same driver that is used for the normal
>> operation and that it calls a function to register itself to vfio
>> by passing a structure with the device and reset function pointer.
>>
>>> A naive question I dare to ask, wouldn't it be acceptable to make
>>> vfio_platform depend on CONFIG_MODULES? Don't we disable modules for
>>> security purpose? In that context would we use VFIO?
>>
>> I think a lot of embedded systems turn off modules to save a little
>> memory, speed up boot time and simplify their user space.
>>
>> Aside from that, the current method is highly unusual and looks a bit
>> fragile to me, as you are relying on internals of the module loader
>> code. It's also a layering violation as the generic code needs to be
>> patched for each device specific module that is added, and we try
>> to avoid that.
Many thanks for taking the time to write this down
>>
>> A possible solution could be something inside the xgbe driver like
>>
>>
>> static void xgbe_init_module(void)
>> {
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AMD_XGBE_ETHERNET)
>> ret = platform_driver_register(&xgbe_driver);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PLATFORM))
>> ret = vfio_platform_register_reset(&xgbe_of_match, xgbe_platform_reset);
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> This way you have exactly one driver module that gets loaded for the
>> device and you can use it either with the platform_driver or through
>> vfio.
If I understand it correctly you still need 2 loaded modules (VFIO
driver & XGBE driver which implements the reset function) or am I
missing something?
I had a similar mechanism of registration in my PATCH v1 but I did the
registration from the reset module itself instead of in the native
driver, as you suggest here.
Best Regards
Eric
>>
>> A nicer way that would be a little more work would be to integrate
>> the reset infrastructure into 'struct platform_driver' framework,
>> by adding another callback to the it for doing the interaction with
>> vfio, something like
>>
>> enum vfio_platform_op {
>> VFIO_PLATFORM_BIND,
>> VFIO_PLATFORM_UNBIND,
>> VFIO_PLATFORM_RESET,
>> };
>>
>> struct platform_driver {
>> int (*probe)(struct platform_device *);
>> int (*remove)(struct platform_device *);
>> ...
>> int (*vfio_manage)(struct platform_device *, enum vfio_platform_op);
>> struct device_driver driver;
>> };
>>
>> This would integrate much more closely into the platform driver framework,
>> just like the regular vfio driver integrates into the PCI framework.
>> Unlike PCI however, you can't just use the generic driver framework to
>> unbind the driver, because you still need device specific code.
>>
> Thanks for these suggestions, really helpful.
>
> What I don't understand in the latter example is how VFIO knows which
> struct platform_driver to interact with?
>
> Also, just so I'm sure I understand correctly, VFIO_PLATFORM_UNBIND is
> then called by VFIO before the VFIO driver unbinds from the device
> (unbinding the platform driver from the device being a completely
> separate thing)?
>
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
