Re: [PATCH 2/3] hw/cxl: Simplified Identify Switch Device & Get Physical Port State

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>]

On Mon,  2 Jun 2025 19:29:41 +0530
Arpit Kumar <arpit1.kumar@samsung.com> wrote:

> Modified Identify Switch Device (Opcode 5100h)
> & Get Physical Port State(Opcode 5101h)
> using physical ports info stored during enumeration
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arpit Kumar <arpit1.kumar@samsung.com>
A few additional comments in here.

J
> ---
>  hw/cxl/cxl-mailbox-utils.c | 133 +++++++------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/cxl/cxl-mailbox-utils.c b/hw/cxl/cxl-mailbox-utils.c
> index 680055c6c0..b2fa79a721 100644
> --- a/hw/cxl/cxl-mailbox-utils.c
> +++ b/hw/cxl/cxl-mailbox-utils.c
> @@ -558,17 +558,7 @@ static CXLRetCode cmd_set_response_msg_limit(const struct cxl_cmd *cmd,
>      return CXL_MBOX_SUCCESS;
>  }
>  
> -static void cxl_set_dsp_active_bm(PCIBus *b, PCIDevice *d,
> -                                  void *private)
> -{
> -    uint8_t *bm = private;
> -    if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(d), TYPE_CXL_DSP)) {
> -        uint8_t port = PCIE_PORT(d)->port;
> -        bm[port / 8] |= 1 << (port % 8);
> -    }
> -}
> -
> -/* CXL r3.1 Section 7.6.7.1.1: Identify Switch Device (Opcode 5100h) */
> +/* CXL r3.2 Section 7.6.7.1.1: Identify Switch Device (Opcode 5100h) */

I'd prefer the spec reference updates in a separate patch. They are noise here
and kind of suggest there are real changes rather than just refactoring.


> @@ -611,16 +599,14 @@ static CXLRetCode cmd_identify_switch_device(const struct cxl_cmd *cmd,
>          out->ingress_port_id = 0;
>      }
>  
> -    pci_for_each_device_under_bus(bus, cxl_set_dsp_active_bm,
> -                                  out->active_port_bitmask);
> -    out->active_port_bitmask[usp->port / 8] |= (1 << usp->port % 8);

Ah. With this in front of me the reason for the sizeing is much clearer
than in previous patch on it's own. Combining the two will make it all more obvious.

> -
> +    memcpy(out->active_port_bitmask, cci->pports.active_port_bitmask,
> +           sizeof(cci->pports.active_port_bitmask));
>      *len_out = sizeof(*out);
>  
>      return CXL_MBOX_SUCCESS;
>  }
>  
> -/* CXL r3.1 Section 7.6.7.1.2: Get Physical Port State (Opcode 5101h) */
> +/* CXL r3.2 Section 7.6.7.1.2: Get Physical Port State (Opcode 5101h) */
>  static CXLRetCode cmd_get_physical_port_state(const struct cxl_cmd *cmd,
>                                                uint8_t *payload_in,
>                                                size_t len_in,
> @@ -628,44 +614,21 @@ static CXLRetCode cmd_get_physical_port_state(const struct cxl_cmd *cmd,
>                                                size_t *len_out,
>                                                CXLCCI *cci)
>  {

>  
>      in = (struct cxl_fmapi_get_phys_port_state_req_pl *)payload_in;
>      out = (struct cxl_fmapi_get_phys_port_state_resp_pl *)payload_out;
> @@ -673,72 +636,24 @@ static CXLRetCode cmd_get_physical_port_state(const struct cxl_cmd *cmd,
>      if (len_in < sizeof(*in)) {
>          return CXL_MBOX_INVALID_PAYLOAD_LENGTH;
>      }
> -    /* Check if what was requested can fit */
> +

The check is still here... So why remove the comment?

>      if (sizeof(*out) + sizeof(*out->ports) * in->num_ports > cci->payload_max) {
>          return CXL_MBOX_INVALID_INPUT;
>      }
>  
> -    /* For success there should be a match for each requested */
> -    out->num_ports = in->num_ports;
> +    if (in->num_ports > cci->pports.num_ports) {
> +        return CXL_MBOX_INVALID_INPUT;
> +    }
>  
> +    out->num_ports = in->num_ports;
>      for (i = 0; i < in->num_ports; i++) {
> -        struct cxl_fmapi_port_state_info_block *port;
> -        /* First try to match on downstream port */
> -        PCIDevice *port_dev;
> -        uint16_t lnkcap, lnkcap2, lnksta;
> -
> -        port = &out->ports[i];
> -
> -        port_dev = pcie_find_port_by_pn(bus, in->ports[i]);
> -        if (port_dev) { /* DSP */
> -            PCIDevice *ds_dev = pci_bridge_get_sec_bus(PCI_BRIDGE(port_dev))
> -                ->devices[0];  
> -            port->config_state = 3;
> -            if (ds_dev) {
> -                if (object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(ds_dev), TYPE_CXL_TYPE3)) {
> -                    port->connected_device_type = 5; /* Assume MLD for now */
> -                } else {
> -                    port->connected_device_type = 1;
> -                }
> -            } else {
> -                port->connected_device_type = 0;
> +        int pn = in->ports[i];
> +        for (int j = 0; j < PCI_DEVFN_MAX; j++) {
> +            if (pn == cci->pports.pport_info[j].port_id) {

Given port id is 0-255 and your port_info has 256 elements, why not index
by port_id when storing them in the first place? That should reduce
complexity of this look up.  I don't think we ever actually look up
by devfn?

> +                memcpy(&out->ports[i], &(cci->pports.pport_info[pn]),
> +                       sizeof(struct cxl_phy_port_info));