On Thu, 2022-06-30 at 14:40 +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
>
> On 6/28/22 16:30, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > While determining the next PCI function is factored out of
> > pci_scan_slot() into next_fn() the former still handles the first
> > function as a special case. This duplicates the code from the scan loop.
> >
> > Furthermore the non ARI branch of next_fn() is generally hard to
> > understand and especially the check for multifunction devices is hidden
> > in the handling of NULL devices for non-contiguous multifunction. It
> > also signals that no further functions need to be scanned by returning
> > 0 via wraparound and this is a valid function number.
> >
> > Improve upon this by transforming the conditions in next_fn() to be
> > easier to understand.
> >
> > By changing next_fn() to return -ENODEV instead of 0 when there is no
> > next function we can then handle the initial function inside the loop
> > and deduplicate the shared handling. This also makes it more explicit
> > that only function 0 must exist.
> >
> > No functional change is intended.
> >
> > Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/pci/probe.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/probe.c b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> > index 17a969942d37..b05d0ed83a24 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/probe.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/probe.c
> > @@ -2579,8 +2579,7 @@ struct pci_dev *pci_scan_single_device(struct pci_bus *bus, int devfn)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_scan_single_device);
> >
> > -static unsigned int next_fn(struct pci_bus *bus, struct pci_dev *dev,
> > - unsigned int fn)
> > +static int next_fn(struct pci_bus *bus, struct pci_dev *dev, int fn)
> > {
> > int pos;
> > u16 cap = 0;
> > @@ -2588,24 +2587,26 @@ static unsigned int next_fn(struct pci_bus *bus, struct pci_dev *dev,
> >
> > if (pci_ari_enabled(bus)) {
> > if (!dev)
> > - return 0;
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > pos = pci_find_ext_capability(dev, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_ARI);
> > if (!pos)
> > - return 0;
> > + return -ENODEV;
> >
> > pci_read_config_word(dev, pos + PCI_ARI_CAP, &cap);
> > next_fn = PCI_ARI_CAP_NFN(cap);
> > if (next_fn <= fn)
> > - return 0; /* protect against malformed list */
> > + return -ENODEV; /* protect against malformed list */
> >
> > return next_fn;
> > }
> >
> > - /* dev may be NULL for non-contiguous multifunction devices */
> > - if (!dev || dev->multifunction)
> > - return (fn + 1) % 8;
> > + if (fn >= 7)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + /* only multifunction devices may have more functions */
> > + if (dev && !dev->multifunction)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> >
> > - return 0;
> > + return fn + 1;
>
> No more % 8 ?
> Even it disapear later shouldn't we keep it ?
The "% 8" became unnecessary due to the explicit "if (fn >= 7)"
above.
The original "% 8" did what I referred to in the commit message with
"It [the function] also signals that no further functions need to be
scanned by returning 0 via wraparound and this is a valid function
number.". Instead we now explicitly return -ENODEV in this case.
>
>
>
> > }
> >
> > static int only_one_child(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > @@ -2643,26 +2644,25 @@ static int only_one_child(struct pci_bus *bus)
> > */
> > int pci_scan_slot(struct pci_bus *bus, int devfn)
> > {
> > - unsigned int fn, nr = 0;
> > struct pci_dev *dev;
> > + int fn = 0, nr = 0;
> >
> > if (only_one_child(bus) && (devfn > 0))
> > return 0; /* Already scanned the entire slot */
> >
> > - dev = pci_scan_single_device(bus, devfn);
> > - if (!dev)
> > - return 0;
> > - if (!pci_dev_is_added(dev))
> > - nr++;
> > -
> > - for (fn = next_fn(bus, dev, 0); fn > 0; fn = next_fn(bus, dev, fn)) {
> > + do {
> > dev = pci_scan_single_device(bus, devfn + fn);
> > if (dev) {
> > if (!pci_dev_is_added(dev))
> > nr++;
> > - dev->multifunction = 1;
> > + if (fn > 0)
> > + dev->multifunction = 1;
> > + } else if (fn == 0) {
> > + /* function 0 is required */
> > + break;
> > }
> > - }
> > + fn = next_fn(bus, dev, fn);
> > + } while (fn >= 0);
> >
> > /* Only one slot has PCIe device */
> > if (bus->self && nr)
> >
>
> Otherwise LGTM
>
Thanks for taking a look!
