qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC QEMU PATCH v8 2/2] virtio-pci: implement No_Soft_Reset bit


From: Chen, Jiqian
Subject: Re: [RFC QEMU PATCH v8 2/2] virtio-pci: implement No_Soft_Reset bit
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:00:27 +0000

On 2024/3/29 15:20, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 3:07 PM Chen, Jiqian <Jiqian.Chen@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024/3/28 20:36, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  static void virtio_pci_bus_reset_hold(Object *obj)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>      PCIDevice *dev = PCI_DEVICE(obj);
>>>>>>      DeviceState *qdev = DEVICE(obj);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +    if (virtio_pci_no_soft_reset(dev)) {
>>>>>> +        return;
>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>      virtio_pci_reset(qdev);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      if (pci_is_express(dev)) {
>>>>>> @@ -2484,6 +2511,8 @@ static Property virtio_pci_properties[] = {
>>>>>>                      VIRTIO_PCI_FLAG_INIT_LNKCTL_BIT, true),
>>>>>>      DEFINE_PROP_BIT("x-pcie-pm-init", VirtIOPCIProxy, flags,
>>>>>>                      VIRTIO_PCI_FLAG_INIT_PM_BIT, true),
>>>>>> +    DEFINE_PROP_BIT("x-pcie-pm-no-soft-reset", VirtIOPCIProxy, flags,
>>>>>> +                    VIRTIO_PCI_FLAG_PM_NO_SOFT_RESET_BIT, false),
> 
> Why does it come with an x prefix?
Sorry, it's my misunderstanding of this prefix, if No_Soft_Reset doesn't need 
this prefix, I will delete it in next version.
Does x prefix means compat machinery? Or other meanings?

> 
>>>>>>      DEFINE_PROP_BIT("x-pcie-flr-init", VirtIOPCIProxy, flags,
>>>>>>                      VIRTIO_PCI_FLAG_INIT_FLR_BIT, true),
>>>>>>      DEFINE_PROP_BIT("aer", VirtIOPCIProxy, flags,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a bit confused about this part.
>>>>> Do you want to make this software controllable?
>>>> Yes, because even the real hardware, this bit is not always set.
> 
> We are talking about emulated devices here.
Yes, I just gave an example. It actually this bit is not always set. What's 
your opinion about when to set this bit or which virtio-device should set this 
bit?

> 
>>>
>>> So which virtio devices should and which should not set this bit?
>> This depends on the scenario the virtio-device is used, if we want to 
>> trigger an internal soft reset for the virtio-device during S3, this bit 
>> shouldn't be set.
> 
> If the device doesn't need reset, why bother the driver for this?
I don't know what you mean.
If the device doesn't need reset, we can config true to set this bit, then on 
the driver side, driver finds this bit is set, then driver will not trigger a 
soft reset.

> 
> Btw, no_soft_reset is insufficient for some cases, 
May I know which cases?

> there's a proposal for the virtio-spec. I think we need to wait until it is 
> done.
Can you share the proposal?

> 
>> In my use case on my environment, I don't want to reset virtio-gpu during S3,
>> because once the display resources are destroyed, there are not enough 
>> information to re-create them, so this bit should be set.
>> Making this bit software controllable is convenient for users to take their 
>> own choices.
> 
> Thanks
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>> Or should this be set to true by default and then
>>>>> changed to false for old machine types?
>>>> How can I do so?
>>>> Do you mean set this to true by default, and if old machine types don't 
>>>> need this bit, they can pass false config to qemu when running qemu?
>>>
>>> No, you would use compat machinery. See how is x-pcie-flr-init handled.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Jiqian Chen.
> 

-- 
Best regards,
Jiqian Chen.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]