Message-Id: <20140402170638.51745f5c231a7632422e4cc5@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:06:38 -0500
From:	Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@...aro.org>
To:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:	alex.williamson@...hat.com, stuart.yoder@...escale.com,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@...mens.com, will.deacon@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.cz, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
	Varun.Sethi@...escale.com, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, agraf@...e.de,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, d.kasatkin@...sung.com, tj@...nel.org,
	scottwood@...escale.com, a.motakis@...tualopensystems.com,
	tech@...tualopensystems.com, Bharat.Bhushan@...escale.com,
	toshi.kani@...com, a.rigo@...tualopensystems.com,
	iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, joe@...ches.com,
	christoffer.dall@...aro.org, kim.phillips@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PCI: Introduce new device binding path using
 pci_dev.driver_override

On Tue, 1 Apr 2014 17:23:24 -0700
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 06:52:12PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:28:54 -0600
> > Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The driver_override field allows us to specify the driver for a device
> > > rather than relying on the driver to provide a positive match of the
> > > device.  This shortcuts the existing process of looking up the vendor
> > > and device ID, adding them to the driver new_id, binding the device,
> > > then removing the ID, but it also provides a couple advantages.
> > > 
> > > First, the above process allows the driver to bind to any device
> > > matching the new_id for the window where it's enabled.  This is often
> > > not desired, such as the case of trying to bind a single device to a
> > > meta driver like pci-stub or vfio-pci.  Using driver_override we can
> > > do this deterministically using:
> > > 
> > > echo pci-stub > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:03:00.0/driver_override
> > > echo 0000:03:00.0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:03:00.0/driver/unbind
> > > echo 0000:03:00.0 > /sys/bus/pci/drivers_probe
> > > 
> > > Previously we could not invoke drivers_probe after adding a device
> > > to new_id for a driver as we get non-deterministic behavior whether
> > > the driver we intend or the standard driver will claim the device.
> > > Now it becomes a deterministic process, only the driver matching
> > > driver_override will probe the device.
> > > 
> > > To return the device to the standard driver, we simply clear the
> > > driver_override and reprobe the device, ex:
> > > 
> > > echo > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:03:00.0/preferred_driver
> > > echo 0000:03:00.0 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:03:00.0/driver/unbind
> > > echo 0000:03:00.0 > /sys/bus/pci/drivers_probe
> > > 
> > > Another advantage to this approach is that we can specify a driver
> > > override to force a specific binding or prevent any binding.  For
> > > instance when an IOMMU group is exposed to userspace through VFIO
> > > we require that all devices within that group are owned by VFIO.
> > > However, devices can be hot-added into an IOMMU group, in which case
> > > we want to prevent the device from binding to any driver (preferred
> > > driver = "none") or perhaps have it automatically bind to vfio-pci.
> > > With driver_override it's a simple matter for this field to be set
> > > internally when the device is first discovered to prevent driver
> > > matches.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Apologies for the exceptionally long cc list, this is a follow-up to
> > > Stuart's "Subject: mechanism to allow a driver to bind to any device"
> > > thread.  This is effectively a v2 of the proof-of-concept patch I
> > > posted in that thread.  This version changes to use a dummy id struct
> > > to return on an "override" match, which removes the collateral damage
> > > and greatly simplifies the patch.  This feels fairly well baked for
> > > PCI and I would expect that platform drivers could do a similar
> > > implementation.  From there perhaps we can discuss whether there's
> > > any advantage to placing driver_override on struct device.  The logic
> > > for incorporating it into the match still needs to happen per bus
> > > driver, so it might only contribute to consistency of the show/store
> > > sysfs attributes to move it up to struct device.  Please comment.
> > 
> > Sounds like Greg likes this approach more than {drv,dev}_sysfs_only.
> 
> I have made no such judgement, I only pointed out that if you

ok.  If no-one chimes in in favour of one or the other, driver_override
works for platform devices.

> modify/add/remove a sysfs file, it needs to have documentation for it.

ok, so the platform device implementation should add a new
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-platform...

> > The diff below is the result of duplicating and converting this patch
> > for platform devices, and, indeed, binding a device to the
> > vfio-platform driver succeeds with:
> > 
> > echo vfio-platform > /sys/bus/platform/devices/fff51000.ethernet/driver_override
> > echo fff51000.ethernet > /sys/bus/platform/devices/fff51000.ethernet/driver/unbind
> > echo fff51000.ethernet > /sys/bus/platform/drivers_probe
> > 
> > However, it's almost pure duplication modulo the bus match code.  The
> > only other place I can see where to put the common bus check is
> > drivers/base/base.h:driver_match_device(), which I'm guessing is
> > off-limits?  So should we leave this as per-bus code, and somehow
> > refactor driver_override_{show,store}?
> 
> If you can provide a way for this to be done in a bus-independant way,
> like we did for new_id and the like, I'd be open to reviewing it.

I may be blind, but I don't see any new_id-related code shared
between drivers/pci/pci-driver.c and, e.g., drivers/usb/serial/bus.c,
nor do I see anything new_id related in drivers/base/.

So if we are to follow the current model, the PCI and platform device
implementations should be maintained separately.

Kim
--
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