On 30.09.2021 09:52, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> @@ -445,14 +456,25 @@ static void rom_write(const struct pci_dev *pdev,
> unsigned int reg,
> rom->addr = val & PCI_ROM_ADDRESS_MASK;
> }
>
> -static int add_bar_handlers(const struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +static void guest_rom_write(const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int reg,
> + uint32_t val, void *data)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static uint32_t guest_rom_read(const struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int reg,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + return 0xffffffff;
> +}
> +
> +static int add_bar_handlers(const struct pci_dev *pdev, bool is_hwdom)
I remain unconvinced that this boolean is the best way to go here, but
I'll leave the decision there to Roger. Just a couple of nits:
> @@ -593,6 +625,30 @@ static int init_bars(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> }
> REGISTER_VPCI_INIT(init_bars, VPCI_PRIORITY_MIDDLE);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAS_VPCI_GUEST_SUPPORT
> +int vpci_bar_add_handlers(const struct domain *d, const struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + int rc;
> +
> + /* Remove previously added registers. */
> + vpci_remove_device_registers(pdev);
> +
> + rc = add_bar_handlers(pdev, is_hardware_domain(d));
> + if ( rc )
> + gdprintk(XENLOG_ERR,
> + "%pp: failed to add BAR handlers for dom%pd: %d\n",
Only %pd please, as that already expands to d<num>.
> + &pdev->sbdf, d, rc);
> + return rc;
Blank line please ahead of the main return statement of a function.
Jan
