On 2/1/21 12:14 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:28:27 +0000
Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch doesn't change any logic but only align to the concept of
vfio_pci_core extensions. Extensions that are related to a platform
and not to a specific vendor of PCI devices should be part of the core
driver. Extensions that are specific for PCI device vendor should go
to a dedicated vendor vfio-pci driver.
My understanding is that igd means support for Intel graphics, i.e. a
strict subset of x86. If there are other future extensions that e.g.
only make sense for some devices found only on AMD systems, I don't
think they should all be included under the same x86 umbrella.
Similar reasoning for nvlink, that only seems to cover support for some
GPUs under Power, and is not a general platform-specific extension IIUC.
We can arguably do the zdev -> s390 rename (as zpci appears only on
s390, and all PCI devices will be zpci on that platform), although I'm
not sure about the benefit.
As far as I can tell, there isn't any benefit for s390 it's just
"re-branding" to match the platform name rather than the zdev moniker,
which admittedly perhaps makes it more clear to someone outside of s390
that any PCI device on s390 is a zdev/zpci type, and thus will use this
extension to vfio_pci(_core). This would still be true even if we added
something later that builds atop it (e.g. a platform-specific device
like ism-vfio-pci). Or for that matter, mlx5 via vfio-pci on s390x uses
these zdev extensions today and would need to continue using them in a
world where mlx5-vfio-pci.ko exists.
I guess all that to say: if such a rename matches the 'grand scheme' of
this design where we treat arch-level extensions to vfio_pci(_core) as
"vfio_pci_(arch)" then I'm not particularly opposed to the rename. But
by itself it's not very exciting :)
For now, x86 extensions will include only igd.
Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig | 13 ++++++-------
drivers/vfio/pci/Makefile | 2 +-
drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c | 2 +-
drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 2 +-
drivers/vfio/pci/{vfio_pci_igd.c => vfio_pci_x86.c} | 0
5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
rename drivers/vfio/pci/{vfio_pci_igd.c => vfio_pci_x86.c} (100%)
(...)
diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
index c559027def2d..e0e258c37fb5 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c
@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_enable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
if (vfio_pci_is_vga(pdev) &&
pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL &&
- IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_IGD)) {
+ IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_X86)) {
ret = vfio_pci_igd_init(vdev);
This one explicitly checks for Intel devices, so I'm not sure why you
want to generalize this to x86?
if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
pci_warn(pdev, "Failed to setup Intel IGD regions\n");
