> > > +
> > > +/* collect TSM capable devices to rendezvous with the tsm driver */
> > > +static DEFINE_XARRAY(pci_tsm_devs);
> >
> > imho either this or pci_dev::tsm is enough but not necessarily both.
>
> You mean:
>
> s/pci_tsm_devs/tsm_devs/
>
> ?
I don't think the concern is just a renaming. My understanding is, we
already have a struct pci_tsm embedded in struct pci_dev, we could loop
and find all TSM capable devices by:
for_each_pci_dev(pdev) {
if (pdev->tsm)
pci_tsm_add/del(pdev);
}
A dedicated list for TSM capable devices seems not necessary.
But my concern is about VFs. VFs are as well TSM capable but not
applicable for tsm_ops->exec(TSM_EXEC_CONNECT), maybe not applicable
for tsm_ops->add() either. One way to distinguish PF/VFs is we only
collect PFs in pci_tsm_devs, but all TSM capable devices have
valid pci_dev::tsm pointer.
TSM capable devices in Guest should not been collected in pci_tsm_devs
either.
Thanks,
Yilun
