On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 06:16:39PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> @@ -397,8 +401,9 @@ struct CXLType3Dev {
> AddressSpace hostpmem_as;
> CXLComponentState cxl_cstate;
> CXLDeviceState cxl_dstate;
> - CXLCCI cci;
> -
> + CXLCCI cci; /* Primary PCI mailbox CCI */
> + CXLCCI oob_mctp_cci; /* Initialized only if targetted */
> +
I've been humming and hawing over this on the MHD stuff because I wanted
to figure out how to "add a CCI command" to a type-3 device without
either having a billion definitions for CCI command sets - or doing
something like this.
I don't hate this design pattern, I just want to ask whether your
intent is to end up with CXLType3Dev hosting many CXLCCI's based on what
wrapper types you have.
Example: a type-3 device with mctp pass through and the MHD command set
CXLType3Dev {
...
CXLCCI cci;
CXLCCI oob_mctp_cci;
CXLCCI mhd_cci;
...
}
Instantiate:
-device cxl-type3,bus=swport0,memdev=cxl-mem1,id=cxl-pmem1,lsa=cxl-lsa1,sn=3
-device i2c_mctp_cxl,bus=aspeed.i2c.bus.0,address=5,target=cxl-pmem1
-device cxl-mhd,target=cxl-pmem1,...whatever else...
where the MHD code is contained within its own type/file, and the type3
device hosts the CCI for it. Similar to how you've implemented the MTCP
stuff here.
The reason I ask is because certain CCI's don't necessarily get
associated with "a bus" so much as "a device". the MHD example - it's
still part of "the device", but it's optional. So does it make sense
to create this wrapper without a bus association, or to just pile it on
top CXLType3Dev and have to duplicate the code across any other
multi-headed devices that folks may conjur up?
~Gregory
