[PATCH v6 07/12] PCI: Refactor matching logic for pci_dev_acs_ops

[Pranjal Shrivastava]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 09:49:28PM +0000, David Matlack wrote:
> On 2026-06-07 07:01 PM, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 08:24:05PM +0000, David Matlack wrote:
> > > Refactor the logic to match devices to pci_dev_acs_ops by factoring out
> > > the loop and device matching into its own routine. This eliminates some
> > > duplicate code between pci_dev_specific_enable_acs() and
> > > pci_dev_specific_disable_acs_redir(), and will also be used in a
> > > subsequent commit to check if a device requires device-specific
> > > enable_acs() during a Live Update.
> > > 
> > > No functional change intended.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: David Matlack <dmatlack at google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pci/quirks.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > >  } pci_dev_acs_ops[] = {
> > >  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_ANY_ID,
> > > +	    .match = pci_quirk_intel_pch_acs_match,
> > >  	    .enable_acs = pci_quirk_enable_intel_pch_acs,
> > >  	},
> > >  	{ PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL, PCI_ANY_ID,
> > > +	    .match = pci_quirk_intel_spt_pch_acs_match,
> > >  	    .enable_acs = pci_quirk_enable_intel_spt_pch_acs,
> > >  	    .disable_acs_redir = pci_quirk_disable_intel_spt_pch_acs_redir,
> > >  	},
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > -int pci_dev_specific_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > > +static const struct pci_dev_acs_ops *pci_dev_acs_ops_get(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >  {
> > >  	const struct pci_dev_acs_ops *p;
> > > -	int i, ret;
> > > +	int i;
> > >  
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pci_dev_acs_ops); i++) {
> > >  		p = &pci_dev_acs_ops[i];
> > > @@ -5481,33 +5475,29 @@ int pci_dev_specific_enable_acs(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >  		     p->vendor == (u16)PCI_ANY_ID) &&
> > >  		    (p->device == dev->device ||
> > >  		     p->device == (u16)PCI_ANY_ID) &&
> > > -		    p->enable_acs) {
> > > -			ret = p->enable_acs(dev);
> > > -			if (ret >= 0)
> > > -				return ret;
> > > -		}
> > > +		    p->match(dev))
> > > +			return p;
> > 
> > Nit:
> > Should we check if (p->match != NULL) like we check for p->enable_acs &
> > p->disable_acs_redir(). 
> > 
> > Otherwise, it seems like we're mandating the existence of a match op in
> > the pci_dev_acs_ops here? Today, we just have two Intel entries in that
> > array, both of which need the match op. However, AFAICT, it shouldn't be
> > mandatory for future SoCs that might only need a simple vid + devid match
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> I would usually say those future SoCs should be the ones to make it
> optional if and when they need to.

Well.. that's fair I guess.

> 
> But making p->matc optional now isn't so bad:
> 
>         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pci_dev_acs_ops); i++) {
>                 p = &pci_dev_acs_ops[i];
>                 if ((p->vendor == dev->vendor ||
>                      p->vendor == (u16)PCI_ANY_ID) &&
>                     (p->device == dev->device ||
> -                    p->device == (u16)PCI_ANY_ID) &&
> -                   p->enable_acs) {
> -                       ret = p->enable_acs(dev);
> -                       if (ret >= 0)
> -                               return ret;
> +                    p->device == (u16)PCI_ANY_ID)) {
> +                       if (!p->match || p->match(dev))
> +                               return p;
>                 }
>         }
> 
> I can include this in v7 if you would like.

I don't have a strong opinion here, this should be fine.
It's just that we have NULL checks for p->enable_acs and 
disable_acs_redir too. It'd be nice to keep the same pattern.

Thanks,
Praan