On 2019/10/18 下午10:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:48:35 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch introduces a new mdev transport for virtio. This is used to
use kernel virtio driver to drive the mediated device that is capable
of populating virtqueue directly.
A new virtio-mdev driver will be registered to the mdev bus, when a
new virtio-mdev device is probed, it will register the device with
mdev based config ops. This means it is a software transport between
mdev driver and mdev device. The transport was implemented through
device specific ops which is a part of mdev_parent_ops now.
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/virtio/Kconfig | 7 +
drivers/virtio/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/virtio/virtio_mdev.c | 409 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 417 insertions(+)
(...)
+static int virtio_mdev_probe(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct mdev_device *mdev = mdev_from_dev(dev);
+ const struct virtio_mdev_device_ops *ops = mdev_get_dev_ops(mdev);
+ struct virtio_mdev_device *vm_dev;
+ int rc;
+
+ vm_dev = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*vm_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!vm_dev)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ vm_dev->vdev.dev.parent = dev;
+ vm_dev->vdev.dev.release = virtio_mdev_release_dev;
+ vm_dev->vdev.config = &virtio_mdev_config_ops;
+ vm_dev->mdev = mdev;
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vm_dev->virtqueues);
+ spin_lock_init(&vm_dev->lock);
+
+ vm_dev->version = ops->get_mdev_features(mdev);
+ if (vm_dev->version != VIRTIO_MDEV_F_VERSION_1) {
+ dev_err(dev, "VIRTIO_MDEV_F_VERSION_1 is mandatory\n");
+ return -ENXIO;
+ }
Hm, so how is that mdev features interface supposed to work? If
VIRTIO_MDEV_F_VERSION_1 is a bit, I would expect this code to test for
its presence, and not for identity.
This should be used by driver to detect the which sets of functions and
their semantics that could be provided by the device. E.g when driver
support both version 2 and version 1 but device only support version 1,
driver can switch to use version 1. Btw, Is there a easy way for to test
its presence or do you mean doing sanity testing on existence of the
mandatory ops that provided by the device?
What will happen if we come up with a version 2? If this is backwards
compatible, will both version 2 and version 1 be set?
Yes, I think so, and version 2 should be considered as some extensions
of version 1. If it's completely, it should use a new class id.
Thanks
+
+ vm_dev->vdev.id.device = ops->get_device_id(mdev);
+ if (vm_dev->vdev.id.device == 0)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ vm_dev->vdev.id.vendor = ops->get_vendor_id(mdev);
+ rc = register_virtio_device(&vm_dev->vdev);
+ if (rc)
+ put_device(dev);
+ else
+ dev_set_drvdata(dev, vm_dev);
+
+ return rc;
+}
(...)
