On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 04:34:49PM -0700, Casey Bowman wrote:
Wanted to ping this older thread to find out where we stand with this patch,
Are we OK with the current state of these changes?
With more recent information gathered from feedback on other patches, would
we prefer changing this to a more arch-neutral control flow?
e.g.
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86)
...
#else
...
#endif
Would we also prefer this RFC series be merged or would it be preferred to
create a new series instead?
for this specific function, that is used in only 2 places I think it's
ok to do:
static inline bool run_as_guest(void)
{
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86)
return !hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NATIVE);
#else
/* Not supported yet */
return false;
#endif
}
For PCH it doesn't really matter as we don't execute that function
for discrete. For intel_vtd_active() I figure anything other than
x86 would be fine with false here.
Jani, that this look good to you?
Lucas De Marchi
Regards,
Casey
On 2/15/22 15:41, Casey Bowman wrote:
Splitting out run_as_guest into platform-specific functions
as arm64 does not support this functionality.
Signed-off-by: Casey Bowman <casey.g.bowman@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 1bca510a946d..fdec2b025540 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -1381,10 +1381,18 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915,
#define INTEL_DISPLAY_ENABLED(dev_priv) \
(drm_WARN_ON(&(dev_priv)->drm, !HAS_DISPLAY(dev_priv)), !(dev_priv)->params.disable_display)
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86)
static inline bool run_as_guest(void)
{
return !hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NATIVE);
}
+#elif IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64)
+static inline bool run_as_guest(void)
+{
+ /* Not supported for arm64, so we return false */
+ return false;
+}
+#endif
#define HAS_D12_PLANE_MINIMIZATION(dev_priv) (IS_ROCKETLAKE(dev_priv) || \
IS_ALDERLAKE_S(dev_priv))
