Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> .....
>
> > @@ -558,11 +675,11 @@ int pci_tsm_bind(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct kvm *kvm, u64 tdi_id)
> > if (!pdev->tsm)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - struct pci_dev *pf0_dev __free(pci_dev_put) = tsm_pf0_get(pdev);
> > - if (!pf0_dev)
> > + struct pci_dev *dsm_dev __free(pci_dev_put) = dsm_dev_get(pdev);
> > + if (!dsm_dev)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
>
> Can we do the below?
>
> modified include/linux/pci-tsm.h
> @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ enum pci_tsm_type {
> */
> struct pci_tdi {
> struct pci_dev *pdev;
> - struct pci_dev *dsm_dev;
> struct kvm *kvm;
> };
>
> @@ -56,6 +55,7 @@ struct pci_tdi {
> */
> struct pci_tsm {
> struct pci_dev *pdev;
> + struct pci_dev *dsm_dev;
> enum pci_tsm_type type;
> struct pci_tdi *tdi;
> };
>
> And update dsm_dev during ->probe(). That will avoid these get/put()
> operations in these functions.
That sounds reasonable at first glance to me, and might even kill the
need for pci_tsm_type because:
PCI_TSM_INVALID: !tsm || !dsm_dev
PCI_TSM_PF0: pdev == dsm_dev
PCI_TSM_VIRTFN: is_virtfn(pdev)
PCI_TSM_MFD: pdev != dsm_dev && PCI_SLOT(pdev) == PCI_SLOT(dsm_dev)
PCI_TSM_DOWNSTREAM: is_upstream_port(dsm_dev)
