[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1octmvkkk.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 03:04:11 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Han\, Weidong" <weidong.han@...el.com>
Cc: "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"'Yinghai Lu'" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"'Joerg Roedel'" <joerg.roedel@....com>,
"'dwmw2\@infradead.org'" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"Siddha\, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"'linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'iommu\@lists.linux-foundation.org'"
<iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"'kvm\@vger.kernel.org'" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Intel-IOMMU, intr-remap: source-id checking
"Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@...el.com> writes:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not finding an upstream pcie_bridge and then concluding we are a
>>> pcie device seems bogus.
>>>
>
> If device is pcie, pci_find_upstream_pcie_bridge() will return
> NULL. For root complex integrated device, it won't find upstream
> bridge, and also return NULL. What's more, pcie device and root
> complex integrated device will be handled as the same way to set
> sid, so I mix them here. But it also returns NULL for busted
> hardware. I think no parent bus can be considered Root Complex
> integrated device, right? If so, I think can handle it as follows:
I have problems with pci_find_upstream_pcie_bridge. The
name is actively misleading about what that function does.
Returning a pci_to_pci bridge is strongly counter intuitive
give that name.
Can we change it to pci_find_upstream_pcie_to_pci_bridge.
Returning NULL in all cases when there is not an upstream
pcie_to_pci bridge.
For the set_sid case that is ideal. For the other cases in
intel-iommu.c it may be a problem. Is it even possible to have a
genuine pci device not behind a pcie to pci bridge on an intel
chipset with this iommu?
> ...
> if (dev->is_pcie || !dev->bus->parent) {
> set_irte_sid(...);
> return 0;
> }
>
> bridge = pci_find_upstream_pcie_bridge(dev);
> if (bridge) {
> if (bridge->is_pcie) /* PCIE-to-PCI/PCIx bridge */
> set_irte_sid(...);
> else /* legacy PCI bridge */
> set_irte_sid(..);
> }
>
> return 0;
>
>>> Why if we do have an upstream pcie bridge do we only want to do a
>>> bus range verification instead of checking just for the bus
>>>> devfn?
>>>
>>> The legacy PCI case seems even stranger.
>
> Why? If a PCI device isn't connected to a PCIe bridge, it should be a legacy bridge.
I am not deep in the IOV specification at the moment. I am mostly
wondering why we pick the parts we pick to verify. I recall
bus and devfn being on the pcie packets so that makes sense.
Why would we ever want to do something different? Does a pcie to pci
bridge do something different in it's translation?
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists