On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 07/05/2018 03:21 PM, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
>> On 2018.07.04 11:07:45 +0800, intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Hang Yuan <hang.yuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> This helps initramfs builder and other tools to know the full dependencies
>>> of i915 and have gvt module loaded with i915.
>>>
>>> v2: add condition and change to pre-dependency (Chris)
>>> v3: move declaration to gvt.c. (Chris)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hang Yuan <hang.yuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gvt.c | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gvt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gvt.c
>>> index 4e65266..00f487e9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gvt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gvt.c
>>> @@ -468,3 +468,10 @@ int intel_gvt_init_device(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>> kfree(gvt);
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT_KVMGT)
>>> +MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: kvmgt");
>>> +#elif IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT_XENGT)
>>> +MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xengt");
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>
>> Why xengt? it's not in upstream at all, so should be splitted and
>> apply to its topic branch only.
> Henry: I understand xengt_mpt is not in upstream but general part of gvt
> like gvt.c is in upstream.
> The change of the patch is in the general part. Do you think so?
AFAICT upstream IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT_XENGT) is always false;
there's no such config.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
