Re: [PATCH 8/9] vfio/pci: use x86 naming instead of igd

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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");





[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux