Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] hw/pci-bridge: Add acpi_uid property to CXL PXB

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:55:25 +0200
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:46:14 +0100
> Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:27:58 +0200
> > Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:03:15 +0100
> > > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
> > >     
> > > > This allows the ACPI SRAT Generic Port Affinity Structure
> > > > creation to be independent of PCI internals. Note that
> > > > the UID is currently the PCI bus number.
> > > > 
> > > > Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > v3: New patch
> > > > ---
> > > >  hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c 
> > > > b/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c
> > > > index 0411ad31ea..92d39b917a 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/pci-bridge/pci_expander_bridge.c
> > > > @@ -93,6 +93,21 @@ static void pxb_bus_class_init(ObjectClass *class, 
> > > > void *data)
> > > >      pbc->numa_node = pxb_bus_numa_node;
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static void prop_pxb_cxl_uid_get(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char 
> > > > *name,
> > > > +                             void *opaque, Error **errp)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    uint32_t uid = pci_bus_num(PCI_BUS(obj));
> > > > +
> > > > +    visit_type_uint32(v, name, &uid, errp);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void pxb_cxl_bus_class_init(ObjectClass *class, void *data)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    pxb_bus_class_init(class, data);
> > > > +    object_class_property_add(class, "acpi_uid", "uint32",
> > > > +                              prop_pxb_cxl_uid_get, NULL, NULL, NULL);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  static const TypeInfo pxb_bus_info = {
> > > >      .name          = TYPE_PXB_BUS,
> > > >      .parent        = TYPE_PCI_BUS,
> > > > @@ -111,7 +126,7 @@ static const TypeInfo pxb_cxl_bus_info = {
> > > >      .name          = TYPE_PXB_CXL_BUS,
> > > >      .parent        = TYPE_CXL_BUS,
> > > >      .instance_size = sizeof(PXBBus),
> > > > -    .class_init    = pxb_bus_class_init,
> > > > +    .class_init    = pxb_cxl_bus_class_init,      
> > > 
> > > why it's CXL only, doesn't the same UID rules apply to other PCI buses?   
> > >  
> > 
> > In principle, yes.  My nervousness is that we can only test anything
> > using this infrastructure today with CXL root bridges.
> > 
> > So I was thinking we should keep it limited and broaden the scope
> > if anyone ever cares.  I don't mind broadening it from the start though.  
> 
> Then I'd use it everywhere and cleanup ACPI code to use it as well
> just to be consistent.
That is easy to do for all the TYPE_PXB_BUS types and they have separate
handling in the various ACPI table builds from other host bridgesn anyway.

Ultimately it might be nice to do for the host bridges in general but
that needs to be separate I think as there isn't a simple common
ancestor to use.  For at least some cases (gpex-acpi.c) it's hard
coded as 0 directly with no look up at all.

Jonathan

>  
> > Jonathan
> > 
> >   
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  static const char *pxb_host_root_bus_path(PCIHostState *host_bridge,   
> > > >    
> > > 
> > >     
> >   
> 
>