<dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>
>> ....
>>
>> > +
>> > +static int pci_tsm_lock(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct tsm_dev *tsm_dev)
>> > +{
>> > + const struct pci_tsm_ops *ops = tsm_pci_ops(tsm_dev);
>> > + struct pci_tsm *tsm;
>> > + int rc;
>> > +
>> > + ACQUIRE(device_intr, lock)(&pdev->dev);
>> > + if ((rc = ACQUIRE_ERR(device_intr, &lock)))
>> > + return rc;
>> > +
>> > + if (pdev->dev.driver)
>> > + return -EBUSY;
>> > +
>> > + tsm = ops->lock(pdev);
>> > + if (IS_ERR(tsm))
>> > + return PTR_ERR(tsm);
>> > +
>> > + pdev->tsm = tsm;
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> >
>>
>> This is slightly different from connect() callback in that we don't have
>> pdev->tsm initialized when calling ->lock() callback. Should we do
>> something like below? (I also included the arch changes to show how
>> destructor is being used.)
>
> Do you need to walk pdev->tsm when you are creating the tsm context?
>
> For example, pass @pdev and the lock context structure to
> rsi_device_lock()?
Sure I can pass struct cca_guest_dsc *dsm as an agrument to
rsi_device_lock().
I was comparing this to connect() callback which when getting called
will already have pdev->tsm set.
static int pci_tsm_connect(struct pci_dev *pdev, struct tsm_dev *tsm_dev)
{
int rc;
struct pci_tsm_pf0 *tsm_pf0;
const struct pci_tsm_ops *ops = tsm_pci_ops(tsm_dev);
struct pci_tsm *pci_tsm __free(tsm_remove) = ops->probe(pdev);
.....
pdev->tsm = pci_tsm;
tsm_pf0 = to_pci_tsm_pf0(pdev->tsm);
...
rc = ops->connect(pdev);
if (rc)
return rc;
pdev->tsm = no_free_ptr(pci_tsm);
}
-aneesh
