On 30.01.2026 00:14, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/firmware/sci.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/firmware/sci.c
>> @@ -126,6 +126,42 @@ int sci_assign_dt_device(struct domain *d, struct
>> dt_device_node *dev)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +int sci_do_domctl(struct xen_domctl *domctl, struct domain *d,
>> + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl)
>> +{
>> + struct dt_device_node *dev;
>> + int ret = 0;
>
> Should this be -ENXIO?
Not unless further changes are made. That error code being set ...
>> + switch ( domctl->cmd )
>> + {
>> + case XEN_DOMCTL_assign_device:
>> + ret = -ENXIO;
... here makes sure that other XEN_DOMCTL_* making it into this function
will ...
>> + if ( domctl->u.assign_device.dev != XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_DT )
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if ( !cur_mediator )
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if ( !cur_mediator->assign_dt_device )
>> + break;
>> +
>> + ret = dt_find_node_by_gpath(domctl->u.assign_device.u.dt.path,
>> + domctl->u.assign_device.u.dt.size,
>> &dev);
>> + if ( ret )
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + ret = sci_assign_dt_device(d, dev);
>> +
>> + break;
>> +
>> + default:
>> + /* do not fail here as call is chained with iommu handling */
>> + break;
... succeed (by making it here). If you used -ENXIO as initializer, ret would
then need setting to 0 here. Which is functionally identical to what is there
now.
>> @@ -195,6 +203,12 @@ static inline int sci_assign_dt_device(struct domain *d,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline int sci_do_domctl(struct xen_domctl *domctl, struct domain *d,
>> + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t)
>> u_domctl)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>
> This should be -ENXIO?
Why? Then several other XEN_DOMCTL_* would break. Or wait, no, nothing would
break at all, as this stub looks to never come into play. It hence should be
dropped.
Jan
