On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:04:11 +0800 "G.R." <firemeteor at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > I'd like to see a comment about this being for Xen in here, and I > >> > wonder if there are other places where we might have to worry about the > >> > Xen implementation. In that case, setting a flag in dev_priv when we > >> > don't find the PCH where we expect would be a good idea too. > >> > > >> > >> I can add a comment here if the overall idea is acceptable to you. > >> But there is already a comment mentioning that the ISA bridge check is > >> for virtualization: > >> > >> 404 /* > >> 405 * The reason to probe ISA bridge instead of Dev31:Fun0 is to > >> 406 * make graphics device passthrough work easy for VMM, that only > >> 407 * need to expose ISA bridge to let driver know the real hardware > >> 408 * underneath. This is a requirement from virtualization team. > >> 409 */ > >> > >> > Ack on the general idea though; I'd like us to be able to run under Xen > >> > without modification. > >> > > >> > >> Stefano may be able to comment if it's feasible to achieve zero > >> modification in this case. > >> I believe this has something to do with getting rid of the PIIX3 > >> device provided by qemu. > >> > >> But generally I think it's very hard to achieve perfect emulation. > >> You can't always foresee what assumption a guest driver would make. > >> Maybe we need some compromise. > > > > I meant that I'd like to see any other patches required for Xen get > > merged, that way people won't have to patch their kernels for i915 > > under Xen. > > Hi Jesse, I think I need to resend the patch with proper comment to > have it formally accepted. > Any guide line for formal patch submission? Do I need to start a > separate thread? No, just cc Daniel Vetter. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
