On 02.03.23 11:53, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:45:00AM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 02.03.23 11:37, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:28:44AM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
On 02.03.23 00:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:03:51PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
To be used in further patch to identify the device hot-plugged into
pcie-root-port.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy<vsement...@yandex-team.ru>
Reviewed-by: Anton Kuchin<antonkuc...@yandex-team.ru>
Wait a second does this work for multifunction devices correctly?
I thought about that and I'm just lost:)
Could several (multifunction?) devices be plugged into one pcie-root-port
device?
One device per port but one multifunction device is represented as multiple
PCIDevice structures.
So, it should be OK to send _one_ event for that multifunction device, and the code is
shpc_reset() is OK, but reporting "Several child devices found" is bad idea?
I don't know about your new event, we are discussing it separately.
yes all functions are removed together normally on real hardware.
So, if I change the logic from pci_find_the_only_child() to
pci_find_first_child() is it OK?
Yes though I don't like this name either - need to make it clear that
multifunction is ok, multiple unrelated devices aren't.
Could we check it somehow that all plugged devices represent the one
multifunction device?
Same question for SHPC slots. For example, shpc_free_devices_in_slot() looks
like we can have several devices in one slot..
On the other hand, in shpc_reset() we have construction
shpc->sec_bus->devices[PCI_DEVFN(SHPC_IDX_TO_PCI(i), 0)] to access the device
in slot. The only one device.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
Same thing.
... and let's not get started about sriov and ari ...
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
--
Best regards,
Vladimir