Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] i915/gvt: Introduce the mmio table to support VFIO new mdev API

From: "Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Zhi Wang <zhi.wang.linux@gmail.com>,
	"jgg@nvidia.com" <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" 
	<intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
	"Xu, Terrence" <terrence.xu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] i915/gvt: Introduce the mmio table to support VFIO new mdev API
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:57:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e2faf7b-383e-58b3-8ae9-8f8d25c64420@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220209072805.GA9050@lst.de>

On 2/9/22 7:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 05:15:00PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT
>>> +
>>> +#define D_BDW   (1 << 0)
>>> +#define D_SKL	(1 << 1)
>>> +#define D_KBL	(1 << 2)
>>> +#define D_BXT	(1 << 3)
>>> +#define D_CFL	(1 << 4)
>>> +
>>> +#define D_GEN9PLUS	(D_SKL | D_KBL | D_BXT | D_CFL)
>>> +#define D_GEN8PLUS	(D_BDW | D_SKL | D_KBL | D_BXT | D_CFL)
>>> +
>>> +#define D_SKL_PLUS	(D_SKL | D_KBL | D_BXT | D_CFL)
>>> +#define D_BDW_PLUS	(D_BDW | D_SKL | D_KBL | D_BXT | D_CFL)
>>> +
>>> +#define D_PRE_SKL	(D_BDW)
>>> +#define D_ALL		(D_BDW | D_SKL | D_KBL | D_BXT | D_CFL)
>>
>> If these really need to be in a header in i915/, I think they need to be
>> longer with some namespacing or something. I do wish these could be
>> hidden though.
> 
> I think we could actually kill them off entirely.  They are used as
> arguments to the macros that setup the mmio table.
> 
> Thefunctions to build these tabls are already organized by families,
> so we'd need relatively few conditions to just build them the right
> way.  There also are some runtime checks in the callbacks, but they
> seem entirely superflous as far as I can tell.
> 
> Only the cmd parser is a bit messy.  So maybe we could keep these
> constants just for the cmd parser inside of gvt for now (and clean
> that up later) and remove them entirely from the mmio table.
> 
I agree that's the correct way for not exporting this to i915 by just organizing them in the functions, like what you said.
But I guess it's also matter of time and schedule as well. If we go that direction, it might take longer time for coding as
this is a big re-factor. Also, we need our QA to do another full test run. That needs to be considered. (If we are ok with that)

Besides, we have to have a methodology to make sure everything is the same as before.
Currently I am comparing the numbers of tracked mmio and the mmio snapshot. It would be nice to have more insight. :)

Thanks,
Zhi.