Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH v3 1/1] i915/drm: Split out x86/arm64 for run_as_guest

[Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:21:59PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> 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?

Lucas De Marchi