Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] cxl/mem: Register CXL memX devices

Jonathan Cameron
2020-11-20T15:20:57Z

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 18:16:19 -0800
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:57 AM Jonathan Cameron
> <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 21:43:55 -0800
> > Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Create the /sys/bus/cxl hierarchy to enumerate memory devices
> > > (per-endpoint control devices), memory address space devices (platform
> > > address ranges with interleaving, performance, and persistence
> > > attributes), and memory regions (active provisioned memory from an
> > > address space device that is in use as System RAM or delegated to
> > > libnvdimm as Persistent Memory regions).
> > >
> > > For now, only the per-endpoint control devices are registered on the
> > > 'cxl' bus.
> >
> > Reviewing ABI without documentation is challenging even when it's simple
> > so please add that for v2.
> >
> > This patch feels somewhat unpolished, but I guess it is mainly here to
> > give an illustration of how stuff might fit together rather than
> > any expectation of detailed review.
>
> Yeah, this is definitely an early look in the spirit of "Release early
> / release often".
>

Definitely a good idea.

...

> >
> > > static int cxl_mem_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > > {
> > > struct cxl_mem *cxlm = ERR_PTR(-ENXIO);
> > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > + struct cxl_memdev *cxlmd;
> > > int rc, regloc, i;
> > >
> > > rc = cxl_bus_prepared(pdev);
> > > @@ -319,20 +545,31 @@ static int cxl_mem_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
> > > if (rc)
> > > return rc;
> > >
> > > - /* Check that hardware "looks" okay. */
> > > - rc = cxl_mem_mbox_get(cxlm);
> > > + rc = cxl_mem_identify(cxlm);
> > > if (rc)
> > > return rc;
> > > -
> > > - cxl_mem_mbox_put(cxlm);
> >
> > It was kind of nice to see the flow earlier, but I'm also thinking it made
> > a slightly harder to read patch. Hmm. Maybe just drop the version earlier
> > in favour of a todo comment that you then do here?
>
> Not sure I follow, but I think you're saying don't bother with an
> initial patch introducing just doing the raw cxl_mem_mbox_get() in
> this path, jump straight to cxl_mem_identify()?

Exactly.

>
> >
> > > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "CXL Memory Device Interface Up\n");
> > > +
> >
> > Nice to tidy that up by moving to earlier patch.
>
> Sure.
>
> >
> > > pci_set_drvdata(pdev, cxlm);
> > >
> > > + cxlmd = cxl_mem_add_memdev(cxlm);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(cxlmd))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(cxlmd);
> >
> > Given we don't actually use cxlmd perhaps a simple return value
> > of 0 or error would be better from cxl_mem_add_memdev()
> >
> > (I guess you may have follow up patches that do something with it
> > here, though it feels wrong to ever do so given it is now registered
> > and hence exposed to the system).
>
> It's not added if IS_ERR() is true, but it would be simpler to just
> have cxl_mem_add_memdev() return an int since ->probe() doesn't use
> it.

Agreed.

>
> >
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >

...