On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:21:59PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>>It's more important to me to get this out of i915_drv.h, which is not
>>supposed to be a collection of random stuff anymore. I've sent patches
>>to this effect but they've stalled a bit.
>
> do you have a patch moving this particular one? got a link?
Yeah, but it was basically shot down by Tvrtko [1], and I stalled there.
I'd just like to get all this cruft out of i915_drv.h. Whenever we have
a file where the name isn't super specific, we seem to have a tendency
of turning it into a dumping ground for random crap. So I'd really like
to move this out of there *before* expanding on it.
BR,
Jani.
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/99852/
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
