On 22/03/2022 15:26, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 22/03/2022 14:49, Jani Nikula wrote:
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.
Sounds like we had agreement on what tweaks to make and I conceded to
live for now with the IMO wrongly named intel_vtd_run_as_guest.
(I mean I really disagree with file name being trumps, which I think
this example illustrates - this is i915 asking whether the kernel is
running as guest so intel_vtd_ prefix is just wrong. Intel VT-d is the
iommu thingy so it makes no sense when called from PCH detection. But I
have no better ideas at the moment. We can call it i915_run_as_guest, to
signify function belongs to i915, but then we lose the first parameter
names the function rule.)
I think the "first parameter names the function" rule has backfired in
gem/gt land, because it's pretty difficult to figure out *where* you'd
expect to find or place functions.
Hey surely is not that bad. And I am sure if I tried to add some display
feature that there's a chance I'd manage to misplace something. :))
No scheme is perfect and there are always edge cases, ambiguities and
always work to cleanup further because it all evolved rather than
started from scratch. If you know what the function you wrote is about,
surely you can place it into a file whose name suggests it is the right
area. If you want the example of GT, there is a nice collection of files
per functional area.. intel_gt_<suffix>.. interrupts, power management,
requests, debugfs, etc.
And if you look for functions you did not write, I certainly suggest
using ctags rather than try opening random files. I think driver is just
too big for the latter approach.
Regards,
Tvrtko
BR,
Jani.
But in any case I don't see that I created any blockers in this thread.
AFAICS just a respin with intel_vtd_active taking struct device is
needed and job done.
Regards,
Tvrtko
