Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v9 08/22] s390: vfio-ap: base implementation of VFIO AP device driver | From | Tony Krowiak <> | Date | Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:30:41 -0400 |
| |
On 08/14/2018 06:42 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:48:05 -0400 > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..5069580 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_drv.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ >> +/* >> + * VFIO based AP device driver >> + * >> + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2018 >> + * >> + * Author(s): Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> >> + */ >> + >> +#include <linux/module.h> >> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> >> +#include <linux/slab.h> >> +#include <linux/string.h> >> +#include "vfio_ap_private.h" >> + >> +#define VFIO_AP_ROOT_NAME "vfio_ap" >> +#define VFIO_AP_DEV_TYPE_NAME "ap_matrix" >> +#define VFIO_AP_DEV_NAME "matrix" >> + >> +MODULE_AUTHOR("IBM Corporation"); >> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("VFIO AP device driver, Copyright IBM Corp. 2018"); >> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); >> + >> +static struct ap_driver vfio_ap_drv; >> + >> +static struct device_type vfio_ap_dev_type = { >> + .name = VFIO_AP_DEV_TYPE_NAME, >> +}; >> + >> +struct ap_matrix_dev matrix_dev; > Please don't add new statically allocated devices, but allocate it > dynamically (see the comment in device_add()).
Okay, I'll dynamically allocate it.
> >> + >> +/* Only type 10 adapters (CEX4 and later) are supported >> + * by the AP matrix device driver >> + */ >> +static struct ap_device_id ap_queue_ids[] = { >> + { .dev_type = AP_DEVICE_TYPE_CEX4, >> + .match_flags = AP_DEVICE_ID_MATCH_QUEUE_TYPE }, >> + { .dev_type = AP_DEVICE_TYPE_CEX5, >> + .match_flags = AP_DEVICE_ID_MATCH_QUEUE_TYPE }, >> + { .dev_type = AP_DEVICE_TYPE_CEX6, >> + .match_flags = AP_DEVICE_ID_MATCH_QUEUE_TYPE }, >> + { /* end of sibling */ }, >> +}; >> + >> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(vfio_ap, ap_queue_ids); >> + >> +static int vfio_ap_queue_dev_probe(struct ap_device *apdev) >> +{ >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static void vfio_ap_queue_dev_remove(struct ap_device *apdev) >> +{ >> + /* Nothing to do yet */ >> +} > You need a release callback as well.
Will do.
> >> + >> +static int vfio_ap_matrix_dev_init(void) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + struct device *root_device; >> + >> + root_device = root_device_register(VFIO_AP_ROOT_NAME); >> + if (IS_ERR(root_device)) { >> + ret = PTR_ERR(root_device); >> + return ret; >> + } >> + >> + matrix_dev.device.type = &vfio_ap_dev_type; >> + dev_set_name(&matrix_dev.device, "%s", VFIO_AP_DEV_NAME); >> + matrix_dev.device.type = &vfio_ap_dev_type; >> + matrix_dev.device.parent = root_device; >> + matrix_dev.device.driver = &vfio_ap_drv.driver; >> + >> + ret = device_register(&matrix_dev.device); >> + if (ret) { >> + root_device_unregister(root_device); > And this needs a put_device() for the matrix device. (It is getting > ugly with a statically allocated device.)
Will do.
> >> + return ret; >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + >> +static void vfio_ap_matrix_dev_destroy(void) >> +{ >> + device_unregister(&matrix_dev.device); > This one already does a put_device(). Didn't the driver core complain?
The driver core did not complain.
> >> + root_device_unregister(matrix_dev.device.parent); >> +}
| |