On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:59:33PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> +static int test_config_read(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int
> where,
> + int size, u32 *val)
> +{
> + if (PCI_SLOT(devfn) > 0)
> + return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> +
> + if (where + size > TEST_CONF_SIZE)
> + return PCIBIOS_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL;
> +
> + if (size == 1)
> + *val = test_readb(test_conf_space + where);
> + else if (size == 2)
> + *val = test_readw(test_conf_space + where);
> + else if (size == 4)
> + *val = test_readl(test_conf_space + where);
> +
> + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
To handle cases where size might be a value other than {1, 2, 4}, would a
switch statement with a default case be more robust here?
> +static int test_config_write(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int
> where,
> + int size, u32 val)
> +{
> + if (PCI_SLOT(devfn) > 0)
> + return PCIBIOS_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND;
> +
> + if (where + size > TEST_CONF_SIZE)
> + return PCIBIOS_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL;
> +
> + if (size == 1)
> + test_writeb(test_conf_space + where, val);
> + else if (size == 2)
> + test_writew(test_conf_space + where, val);
> + else if (size == 4)
> + test_writel(test_conf_space + where, val);
> +
> + return PCIBIOS_SUCCESSFUL;
Same here.
> +static struct pci_dev *hook_device_early;
> +static struct pci_dev *hook_device_header;
> +static struct pci_dev *hook_device_final;
> +static struct pci_dev *hook_device_enable;
> +
> +static void pci_fixup_early_hook(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + hook_device_early = pdev;
> +}
> +DECLARE_PCI_FIXUP_EARLY(TEST_VENDOR_ID, TEST_DEVICE_ID,
> pci_fixup_early_hook);
> [...]
> +static int pci_fixup_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + hook_device_early = NULL;
> + hook_device_header = NULL;
> + hook_device_final = NULL;
> + hook_device_enable = NULL;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
FWIW: if the probe is synchronous and the thread is the same task_struct,
the module level variables can be eliminated by using:
test->priv = kunit_kzalloc(...);
KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_NE(...);
And in the hooks, kunit_get_current_test() returns the struct kunit *.
> +static void pci_fixup_match_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = kunit_device_register(test, DEVICE_NAME);
> +
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_NE(test, NULL, dev);
> +
> + test_conf_space = kunit_kzalloc(test, TEST_CONF_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_NE(test, NULL, test_conf_space);
The common initialization code can be moved to pci_fixup_test_init().
> + struct pci_host_bridge *bridge = devm_pci_alloc_host_bridge(dev, 0);
> +
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_NE(test, NULL, bridge);
> + bridge->ops = &test_ops;
The `bridge` allocation can be moved to .init() too.
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, hook_device_early);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, hook_device_header);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, hook_device_final);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, NULL, hook_device_enable);
Does it really need to check them? They are just initialized by .init().
