Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to
compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two
functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking.
This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if
a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that
has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
---
hw/pci/pci-stub.c | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
index b941a0e..c04a5df 100644
--- a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
+++ b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
@@ -53,3 +53,14 @@ uint16_t pci_requester_id(PCIDevice *dev)
g_assert(false);
return 0;
}
+
+/* Required by ahci.c */
+bool msi_enabled(const PCIDevice *dev)
+{
+ return false;
+}
+
+void msi_notify(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned int vector)
+{
+ g_assert_not_reached();
+}
--
1.8.3.1
On 2/19/19 5:07 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to
> compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two
> functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking.
> This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if
> a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that
> has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/pci/pci-stub.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> index b941a0e..c04a5df 100644
> --- a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> +++ b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> @@ -53,3 +53,14 @@ uint16_t pci_requester_id(PCIDevice *dev)
> g_assert(false);
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +/* Required by ahci.c */
> +bool msi_enabled(const PCIDevice *dev)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +void msi_notify(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned int vector)
> +{
> + g_assert_not_reached();
> +}
>
On 19/02/19 17:07, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to
> compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two
> functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking.
> This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if
> a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that
> has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/pci/pci-stub.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> index b941a0e..c04a5df 100644
> --- a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> +++ b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> @@ -53,3 +53,14 @@ uint16_t pci_requester_id(PCIDevice *dev)
> g_assert(false);
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +/* Required by ahci.c */
> +bool msi_enabled(const PCIDevice *dev)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +void msi_notify(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned int vector)
> +{
> + g_assert_not_reached();
> +}
>
Makes sense, but it is also abstraction time. :) What if instead there
was a function
void msi_allocate_irqs(PCIDevice *pdev, int num, bool fallback_to_intx);
and then ich.c did
irqs = msi_allocate_irqs(pdev, 1, true);
s->irq = irqs[0];
g_free(irqs);
? "if msi_enabled raise MSI else raise INTX" is really a common idiom.
Thanks,
Paolo
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 07:24:40PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 19/02/19 17:07, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to
> > compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two
> > functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking.
> > This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if
> > a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that
> > has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/pci/pci-stub.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> > index b941a0e..c04a5df 100644
> > --- a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> > +++ b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> > @@ -53,3 +53,14 @@ uint16_t pci_requester_id(PCIDevice *dev)
> > g_assert(false);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +
> > +/* Required by ahci.c */
> > +bool msi_enabled(const PCIDevice *dev)
> > +{
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void msi_notify(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned int vector)
> > +{
> > + g_assert_not_reached();
> > +}
> >
>
> Makes sense, but it is also abstraction time. :) What if instead there
> was a function
>
> void msi_allocate_irqs(PCIDevice *pdev, int num, bool fallback_to_intx);
>
> and then ich.c did
>
> irqs = msi_allocate_irqs(pdev, 1, true);
> s->irq = irqs[0];
> g_free(irqs);
>
> ? "if msi_enabled raise MSI else raise INTX" is really a common idiom.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
Maybe it is but the specific issue is not about fallback to INTX of PCI
(is the fallback broken for ahci? I don't know).
The trick is there's no pdev at all.
--
MST
> > Makes sense, but it is also abstraction time. :) What if instead there > > was a function > > > > void msi_allocate_irqs(PCIDevice *pdev, int num, bool fallback_to_intx); > > > > and then ich.c did > > > > irqs = msi_allocate_irqs(pdev, 1, true); > > s->irq = irqs[0]; > > g_free(irqs); > > > > ? "if msi_enabled raise MSI else raise INTX" is really a common idiom. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Paolo > > Maybe it is but the specific issue is not about fallback to INTX of PCI > (is the fallback broken for ahci? I don't know). It works, the above is just a new abstraction. > The trick is there's no pdev at all. The trick :) is that in ich.c there is a pdev. Right now we are assigning to s->irq either the INTX irq (if PCI) or a sysbus irq (if sysbus), but then we need to know about MSI with a wrapper around s->irq. Instead, my suggestion is to put the wrapper in the PCI core as a qemu_irq callback---or perhaps in ich.c, but anyway ahci.c should not care that there could be a PCI AHCI device and it would have two different interrupt modes. In fact, doing this would also remove the need for s->container, I think. Paolo
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:19:30PM -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > Makes sense, but it is also abstraction time. :) What if instead there > > > was a function > > > > > > void msi_allocate_irqs(PCIDevice *pdev, int num, bool fallback_to_intx); > > > > > > and then ich.c did > > > > > > irqs = msi_allocate_irqs(pdev, 1, true); > > > s->irq = irqs[0]; > > > g_free(irqs); > > > > > > ? "if msi_enabled raise MSI else raise INTX" is really a common idiom. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Paolo > > > > Maybe it is but the specific issue is not about fallback to INTX of PCI > > (is the fallback broken for ahci? I don't know). > > It works, the above is just a new abstraction. > > > The trick is there's no pdev at all. > > The trick :) is that in ich.c there is a pdev. Right now we are assigning to > s->irq either the INTX irq (if PCI) or a sysbus irq (if sysbus), but then > we need to know about MSI with a wrapper around s->irq. Oh you mean just for PCI. > Instead, my suggestion is to put the wrapper in the PCI core as a qemu_irq > callback---or perhaps in ich.c, but anyway ahci.c should not care that there > could be a PCI AHCI device and it would have two different interrupt modes. I like it very much that devices call pci_set_irq, I'd rather not have callbacks. I think the wrapper thay calls either pci_set_irq isn't a problem, problem is MSI/X has multiple vectors, INTX doesn't. So for many devices there's something extra that happens just in one mode but not the other to deal with multiple vectors. So I don't think it can be an abstraction that everyone uses. But yes it can be a helper function. In fact mptsas_update_interrupt seems not to be PCI spec compliant: it sets both MSI and INTX. CC original contributor with this question. > In fact, doing this would also remove the need for s->container, I think. > > Paolo
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to
> compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two
> functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking.
> This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if
> a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that
> has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Do you want me to merge this or do you prefer to
merge it with kconfig patches?
> ---
> hw/pci/pci-stub.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> index b941a0e..c04a5df 100644
> --- a/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> +++ b/hw/pci/pci-stub.c
> @@ -53,3 +53,14 @@ uint16_t pci_requester_id(PCIDevice *dev)
> g_assert(false);
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +/* Required by ahci.c */
> +bool msi_enabled(const PCIDevice *dev)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +void msi_notify(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned int vector)
> +{
> + g_assert_not_reached();
> +}
> --
> 1.8.3.1
On 19/02/2019 21.19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >> Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to >> compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two >> functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking. >> This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if >> a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that >> has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > > Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> Thanks! > Do you want me to merge this or do you prefer to > merge it with kconfig patches? If you plan a pci pull request soon, feel free to take it. Otherwise, I can also add it to my Kconfig-for-arm patch series where I need it. Thomas
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:24:00AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 19/02/2019 21.19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to > >> compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two > >> functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking. > >> This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if > >> a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that > >> has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > > Thanks! > > > Do you want me to merge this or do you prefer to > > merge it with kconfig patches? > > If you plan a pci pull request soon, feel free to take it. Otherwise, I > can also add it to my Kconfig-for-arm patch series where I need it. > > Thomas Feel free to include but please talk to Paolo about his ideas for abstracting it out. Thanks! -- MST
On 21/02/19 17:55, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:24:00AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 19/02/2019 21.19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> Some machines have an AHCI adapter, but no PCI. To be able to >>>> compile hw/ide/ahci.c without CONFIG_PCI, we still need the two >>>> functions msi_enabled() and msi_notify() for linking. >>>> This is required for the upcoming Kconfig-like build system, if >>>> a user wants to compile a QEMU binary with just one machine that >>>> has AHCI, but no PCI, like the ARM "cubieboard" for example. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> >> Thanks! >> >>> Do you want me to merge this or do you prefer to >>> merge it with kconfig patches? >> >> If you plan a pci pull request soon, feel free to take it. Otherwise, I >> can also add it to my Kconfig-for-arm patch series where I need it. >> >> Thomas > > Feel free to include but please talk to Paolo about his > ideas for abstracting it out. Not a blocker for me. Paolo
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.