On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, Lucas De Marchi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:21:59PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >>On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Lucas De Marchi <[email protected]> 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. BR, Jani. [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/99852/ -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
