[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: vpci: Remove PCI I/O ranges property value
On Thu, 16 Dec 2021, Rahul Singh wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > > On 16 Dec 2021, at 2:33 am, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Rahul Singh wrote: > >> IO ports on ARM don't exist so all IO ports related hypercalls are going > >> to fail on ARM when we passthrough a PCI device. > >> Failure of xc_domain_ioport_permission(..) would turn into a critical > >> failure at domain creation. We need to avoid this outcome, instead we > >> want to continue with domain creation as normal even if > >> xc_domain_ioport_permission(..) fails. XEN_DOMCTL_ioport_permission > >> is not implemented on ARM so it would return -ENOSYS. > >> > >> To solve above issue remove PCI I/O ranges property value from dom0 > >> device tree node so that dom0 linux will not allocate I/O space for PCI > >> devices if pci-passthrough is enabled. > >> > >> Another valid reason to remove I/O ranges is that PCI I/O space are not > >> mapped to dom0 when PCI passthrough is enabled, also there is no vpci > >> trap handler register for IO bar. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rahul Singh <rahul.singh@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 14 +++++++ > >> xen/common/device_tree.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> xen/include/xen/device_tree.h | 10 +++++ > >> 3 files changed, 96 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c > >> index d02bacbcd1..60f6b2c73b 100644 > >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c > >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c > >> @@ -749,6 +749,11 @@ static int __init write_properties(struct domain *d, > >> struct kernel_info *kinfo, > >> continue; > >> } > >> > >> + if ( is_pci_passthrough_enabled() && > >> + dt_device_type_is_equal(node, "pci") ) > >> + if ( dt_property_name_is_equal(prop, "ranges") ) > >> + continue; > > > > It looks like we are skipping the "ranges" property entirely for the PCI > > node, is that right? Wouldn't that also remove the other (not ioports) > > address ranges? > > We are skipping the “ranges” property here to avoid setting the “ranges” > property when > pci_passthrough is enabled. We will remove only remove IO port and set the > other ‘ranges” property > value in dt_pci_remove_io_ranges() in next if() condition. > > > >> res = fdt_property(kinfo->fdt, prop->name, prop_data, prop_len); > >> > >> if ( res ) > >> @@ -769,6 +774,15 @@ static int __init write_properties(struct domain *d, > >> struct kernel_info *kinfo, > >> if ( res ) > >> return res; > >> } > >> + > >> + /* > >> + * PCI IO bar are not mapped to dom0 when PCI passthrough is > >> enabled, > >> + * also there is no trap handler registered for IO bar therefor > >> remove > >> + * the IO range property from the device tree node for dom0. > >> + */ > >> + res = dt_pci_remove_io_ranges(kinfo->fdt, node); > >> + if ( res ) > >> + return res; > > > > I tried to apply this patch to staging to make it easier to review but I > > think this chuck got applied wrongly: I can see > > dt_pci_remove_io_ranges() added to the function "handle_prop_pfdt" which > > is for guest partial DTBs and not for dom0. > > Oleksandr’s patch series was merged yesterday because of that there is > conflict in applying > this patch. I will rebase the patch and will send it again for review. > > > > > Is dt_pci_remove_io_ranges() meant to be called from write_properties > > instead? It looks like it would be best to call it from > > write_properties, maybe it could be combined with the other new check > > just above in this patch? > > Yes dt_pci_remove_io_ranges() is to be called from write_properties(). OK. In that case the only feedback that is I have is that it might be possible to avoid the first change of this patch to skip "ranges" by moving the call to dt_pci_remove_io_ranges() earlier in the write_properties function.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |