From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f181.google.com (mail-pg1-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09B131327F7 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:49:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.181 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711439359; cv=none; b=mU7RtQZR1FO3jrZo1b+BW5mWx/xIFWDwbCiekQwCNerH9JdGdmDkVGq8OHYO0dUON8EwiBiSTjH2p8kYVy111RMMCtE7W+OFuf+tPjDbuT0380+PZORlwW7ZNy4uwVj8l1uHQG2J46lvl4FbGVr5o8Ejq4qpnk5It0aQnYuhAqU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711439359; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mD/uOohmAdwq6qtfbHHxntanqBnx57lMSP/jqCllu9w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=f/xFcGRLysLk/MNM08R+WOd+KDqNsT3svkxh8VQbfA0DHr/mwowGTnLHnyWzrXgsp6NnA17QJtluej2Sp9WUXLB+aOoUiVMv//+jZnCCzw2IX8O1Lxt9BsytWppeVYkahd1r+02V3N/ZcOqiS8YlF2cy+v+Zs2Sn3Yb2cgMzpvk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=dCvxMlfW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.181 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="dCvxMlfW" Received: by mail-pg1-f181.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-5bdbe2de25fso3585059a12.3 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:49:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1711439357; x=1712044157; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lTWElJB3E3CFBIiAE7FiS8GKRMyRjDaWbtu+LrgbpaY=; b=dCvxMlfWCVKE/qhp/qPYzSRuoBxoV7NqosmrJLOxBMUkSd/9Ywzt69sioW46kRH6YK dsHBnymezLdYKDaXqyH+ToA/y4yionB5MQzJzZFldLKKxt+yYBbsdpUUGr9uVBLq0Tzk xaXuQ6AjVRifYbF6bftc/P6vhP9nPsxIT9wABqF97mOR4VylH6StLXMuYO1zI5rzwSZx 53NSTjFSf7qCi2Q/BpJVq3VE09VfqFZ5cojU+BErAIPHaWASemS6sQ0GEQILRsbItbau THQH/8z7QhSMx78jmT+eoWHALYd3q2egewXTPGt4oz/DN8Kvysk00AtLEJ2TkVxB5vhY PLyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711439357; x=1712044157; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lTWElJB3E3CFBIiAE7FiS8GKRMyRjDaWbtu+LrgbpaY=; b=hP69h2Z+qUmSUpGXe6Un5GY9Y5o6yVrNAvwNyte7649NVQ/7gcdVb86UCi7C52EWzO UPcWZhcK3QNKpKhhQBquv99fI5+5hq235SMqa6h+49wFpnWl7Jgq1us80mVpOU3+dSu7 XoThf8epuTAAjlWdqn4cbBUNu5CmxQFLLxyQen4WuxKJBi9tm+PT09H2NiIDU4aWaLmL BJqxiMKPeDu8ERBqtUB+mNUUwvGiRSIj7wShLkGNg4HGGhMp1mocBMeC1b931XGHOKta KP+ptL4YJ1t3g5/gxu3Fnkxd/gv1S1gPl6pZMy+ehPc1Znx2L/D3PjW0hFFydh4+fEwo e4ng== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX4kQ1y1lHF+J4gaalD0vidHDtmM/jaypKt4dOGRC4D5IKc3+reYWnFsxyFrA0Th8SeWCgk6a1EFi4A2Ly6vJffIJ0x X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyO8KPXQGGct5BPH/8H1PzMWIwCnLmkXhojD7Gn9Hkdn2ANZDj6 5+Ds19IxqUDrJsgBCir3KlhWP0lkE/3f5UlNnVS3QHNWGfQl4xD3rplaxVPbEg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFnMR21PN0mlfkHlkrPmdV3CmWyEENg9/wVPEmQQIeVbXaJ2uuYk7atQhi5sEPODMYCRFD0pw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:1c16:b0:2a0:1f2:e3ca with SMTP id s22-20020a17090a1c1600b002a001f2e3camr8943146pjs.36.1711439357212; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thinkpad ([117.207.28.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t22-20020a17090ae51600b002a000f06db4sm11296861pjy.5.2024.03.26.00.49.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:19:07 +0530 From: Manivannan Sadhasivam To: Niklas Cassel Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= , Rob Herring , Bjorn Helgaas , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , Jingoo Han , Gustavo Pimentel , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhi@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] PCI: endpoint: Decouple EPC and PCIe bus specific events Message-ID: <20240326074907.GD9565@thinkpad> References: <20240314-pci-epf-rework-v1-0-6134e6c1d491@linaro.org> <20240314-pci-epf-rework-v1-2-6134e6c1d491@linaro.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mhi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 05:08:36PM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 08:53:41PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > Currently, 'struct pci_epc_event_ops' has a bunch of events that are sent > > from the EPC driver to EPF driver. But those events are a mix of EPC > > specific events like core_init and PCIe bus specific events like LINK_UP, > > LINK_DOWN, BME etc... > > > > Let's decouple them to respective structs (pci_epc_event_ops, > > pci_epc_bus_event_ops) to make the separation clear. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam > > --- > > drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-mhi.c | 8 ++++++-- > > drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c | 8 ++++++-- > > drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > > include/linux/pci-epf.h | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- > > 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-mhi.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-mhi.c > > index 1c3e4ea76bd2..e5d67aec7574 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-mhi.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-mhi.c > > @@ -880,8 +880,11 @@ static void pci_epf_mhi_unbind(struct pci_epf *epf) > > pci_epc_clear_bar(epc, epf->func_no, epf->vfunc_no, epf_bar); > > } > > > > -static const struct pci_epc_event_ops pci_epf_mhi_event_ops = { > > +static const struct pci_epc_event_ops pci_epf_mhi_epc_event_ops = { > > .core_init = pci_epf_mhi_core_init, > > +}; > > + > > +static const struct pci_epc_bus_event_ops pci_epf_mhi_bus_event_ops = { > > .link_up = pci_epf_mhi_link_up, > > .link_down = pci_epf_mhi_link_down, > > .bme = pci_epf_mhi_bme, > > @@ -903,7 +906,8 @@ static int pci_epf_mhi_probe(struct pci_epf *epf, > > epf_mhi->info = info; > > epf_mhi->epf = epf; > > > > - epf->event_ops = &pci_epf_mhi_event_ops; > > + epf->epc_event_ops = &pci_epf_mhi_epc_event_ops; > > + epf->bus_event_ops = &pci_epf_mhi_bus_event_ops; > > > > mutex_init(&epf_mhi->lock); > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > > index fc0282b0d626..751dab5799d5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/functions/pci-epf-test.c > > @@ -813,8 +813,11 @@ static int pci_epf_test_link_up(struct pci_epf *epf) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static const struct pci_epc_event_ops pci_epf_test_event_ops = { > > +static const struct pci_epc_event_ops pci_epf_test_epc_event_ops = { > > .core_init = pci_epf_test_core_init, > > +}; > > + > > +static const struct pci_epc_bus_event_ops pci_epf_test_bus_event_ops = { > > .link_up = pci_epf_test_link_up, > > }; > > I'm not a big fan of every EPF driver now needing two different > static const struct pci_*_event_ops. > > Is really: > static const struct pci_epc_event_ops pci_epf_test_epc_event_ops = { > .core_init = pci_epf_test_core_init, > }; > > static const struct pci_epc_bus_event_ops pci_epf_test_bus_event_ops = { > .link_up = pci_epf_test_link_up, > }; > > > Better than: > static const struct pci_epc_event_ops pci_epf_test_event_ops = { > .core_init = pci_epf_test_core_init, > .link_up = pci_epf_test_link_up, > } > > The callbacks should have sufficiently distinct names that it is obvious > what it is happening? > > Link up is that the EPC driver tells me that it is link up. > Init is that the EPF function should initialize the BARs etc. > > I'm not saying that I'm totally against this, but I'm not sure that there > are so many EPC callbacks that this is needed? > The issue I'm seeing is that these callbacks are serving different purposes. One is purely EPC specific and another is PCIe Link specific. So mixing them in a single struct doesn't look good IMO. And I agree that we will be left with 2 structs, but at least I can see that it gives a clear representation of the purposes of the callbacks. - Mani > How many will there be after this series? > Four? .init, .deinit, .link_up, .link_down ? > > I would vote to keep all callbacks in the same struct for now, > but you are the maintainer. > > > > > > @@ -959,7 +962,8 @@ static int pci_epf_test_probe(struct pci_epf *epf, > > > > INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&epf_test->cmd_handler, pci_epf_test_cmd_handler); > > > > - epf->event_ops = &pci_epf_test_event_ops; > > + epf->epc_event_ops = &pci_epf_test_epc_event_ops; > > + epf->bus_event_ops = &pci_epf_test_bus_event_ops; > > > > epf_set_drvdata(epf, epf_test); > > return 0; > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > > index ba2ff037dfa6..f602f08a11a2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/endpoint/pci-epc-core.c > > @@ -697,8 +697,8 @@ void pci_epc_linkup(struct pci_epc *epc) > > mutex_lock(&epc->list_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(epf, &epc->pci_epf, list) { > > mutex_lock(&epf->lock); > > - if (epf->event_ops && epf->event_ops->link_up) > > - epf->event_ops->link_up(epf); > > + if (epf->bus_event_ops && epf->bus_event_ops->link_up) > > + epf->bus_event_ops->link_up(epf); > > mutex_unlock(&epf->lock); > > } > > mutex_unlock(&epc->list_lock); > > @@ -723,8 +723,8 @@ void pci_epc_linkdown(struct pci_epc *epc) > > mutex_lock(&epc->list_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(epf, &epc->pci_epf, list) { > > mutex_lock(&epf->lock); > > - if (epf->event_ops && epf->event_ops->link_down) > > - epf->event_ops->link_down(epf); > > + if (epf->bus_event_ops && epf->bus_event_ops->link_down) > > + epf->bus_event_ops->link_down(epf); > > mutex_unlock(&epf->lock); > > } > > mutex_unlock(&epc->list_lock); > > @@ -749,8 +749,8 @@ void pci_epc_init_notify(struct pci_epc *epc) > > mutex_lock(&epc->list_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(epf, &epc->pci_epf, list) { > > mutex_lock(&epf->lock); > > - if (epf->event_ops && epf->event_ops->core_init) > > - epf->event_ops->core_init(epf); > > + if (epf->epc_event_ops && epf->epc_event_ops->core_init) > > + epf->epc_event_ops->core_init(epf); > > mutex_unlock(&epf->lock); > > } > > epc->init_complete = true; > > @@ -772,8 +772,8 @@ void pci_epc_notify_pending_init(struct pci_epc *epc, struct pci_epf *epf) > > { > > if (epc->init_complete) { > > mutex_lock(&epf->lock); > > - if (epf->event_ops && epf->event_ops->core_init) > > - epf->event_ops->core_init(epf); > > + if (epf->epc_event_ops && epf->epc_event_ops->core_init) > > + epf->epc_event_ops->core_init(epf); > > mutex_unlock(&epf->lock); > > } > > } > > @@ -797,8 +797,8 @@ void pci_epc_bme_notify(struct pci_epc *epc) > > mutex_lock(&epc->list_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(epf, &epc->pci_epf, list) { > > mutex_lock(&epf->lock); > > - if (epf->event_ops && epf->event_ops->bme) > > - epf->event_ops->bme(epf); > > + if (epf->bus_event_ops && epf->bus_event_ops->bme) > > + epf->bus_event_ops->bme(epf); > > mutex_unlock(&epf->lock); > > } > > mutex_unlock(&epc->list_lock); > > diff --git a/include/linux/pci-epf.h b/include/linux/pci-epf.h > > index 77b146e0f672..1271e1e00bbd 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/pci-epf.h > > +++ b/include/linux/pci-epf.h > > @@ -68,14 +68,21 @@ struct pci_epf_ops { > > }; > > > > /** > > - * struct pci_epc_event_ops - Callbacks for capturing the EPC events > > - * @core_init: Callback for the EPC initialization complete event > > - * @link_up: Callback for the EPC link up event > > - * @link_down: Callback for the EPC link down event > > - * @bme: Callback for the EPC BME (Bus Master Enable) event > > + * struct pci_epc_event_ops - Callbacks for capturing the EPC specific events > > + * @core_init: Callback for the EPC initialization event > > */ > > struct pci_epc_event_ops { > > int (*core_init)(struct pci_epf *epf); > > +}; > > + > > +/** > > + * struct pci_epc_bus_event_ops - Callbacks for capturing the PCIe bus specific > > + * events > > + * @link_up: Callback for the PCIe bus link up event > > + * @link_down: Callback for the PCIe bus link down event > > + * @bme: Callback for the PCIe bus BME (Bus Master Enable) event > > + */ > > +struct pci_epc_bus_event_ops { > > int (*link_up)(struct pci_epf *epf); > > int (*link_down)(struct pci_epf *epf); > > int (*bme)(struct pci_epf *epf); > > @@ -149,7 +156,8 @@ struct pci_epf_bar { > > * @is_vf: true - virtual function, false - physical function > > * @vfunction_num_map: bitmap to manage virtual function number > > * @pci_vepf: list of virtual endpoint functions associated with this function > > - * @event_ops: Callbacks for capturing the EPC events > > + * @epc_event_ops: Callbacks for capturing the EPC events > > + * @bus_event_ops: Callbacks for capturing the PCIe bus events > > */ > > struct pci_epf { > > struct device dev; > > @@ -179,7 +187,8 @@ struct pci_epf { > > unsigned int is_vf; > > unsigned long vfunction_num_map; > > struct list_head pci_vepf; > > - const struct pci_epc_event_ops *event_ops; > > + const struct pci_epc_event_ops *epc_event_ops; > > + const struct pci_epc_bus_event_ops *bus_event_ops; > > }; > > > > /** > > > > -- > > 2.25.1 > > > -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்