On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 02:01:45PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:37:29PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:58:53AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I don't really care much one way or the other. I think the simplest
> approach is to remove QFLAG_APPLY_ONCE from intel_graphics_quirks()
> and do nothing else, as I suggested here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220113000805.GA295089@bhelgaas
>
> Unfortunately that didn't occur to me until I'd already suggested more
> complicated things that no longer seem worthwhile to me.
>
> The static variable might be ugly, but it does seem to be what
> intel_graphics_quirks() wants -- a "do this at most once per system
> but we don't know exactly which device" situation.
I see.
Yeah, keeping it solely inside intel_graphics_quirks() and maybe with a
comment ontop, why it is done, is simple. I guess if more quirks need
this once-thing people might have to consider a more sensible scheme - I
was just objecting to sprinkling those static vars everywhere.
But your call. :)
Haha :) I was hoping not to touch it myself because I think this
whole stolen memory thing is kind of nasty. It's not clear to me why
we need it at all, or why we have to keep all this device-specific
logic in the kernel, or why it has to be an early quirk as opposed to
a regular PCI quirk. We had a thread [1] about it a while ago but I
don't think anything got resolved.
I was reading that thread again and thinking what we could do to try to
resolve this. I will reply on that thread.
But to try to make forward progress, I applied patch 1/5 (actually,
the updated one from [2]) to my pci/misc branch with the updated
commit log and code comments below.
thanks. I found the wording in the title odd as when I read "first" it
gives me the impression it's saying there could be more, which is not
possible. Anyway, not a big thing. Thanks for rewording it.
Lucas De Marchi
