[RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Refactor struct virtgpu_object ***

[Gerd Hoffmann]

  Hi,

> > struct virtgpu_object {
> 
> Yeah, using "virtgpu_" rather than "virtio_gpu" makes sense.

It wasn't my intention to suggest a rename.  It's just that the kernel
is a bit inconsistent here and I picked the wrong name here.  Most
places use virtio_gpu but some use virtgpu (file names, ioctl api).

> > struct virtgpu_object_hostmem {
> >         struct virtgpu_object base;
> >         {offset, range};
> >         (...)
> 
> I'm a kernel newbie, so it's not obvious to me why struct
> drm_gem_shmem_object would be a base class for struct
> virtgpu_object_hostmem?

I think it is easier to just continue using virtio_gpu_object in most
places and cast to virtio_gpu_object_{shmem,hostmem} only if needed.
Makes it easier to deal with common fields like hw_res_handle.

In the hostmem case we would simply not use the drm_gem_shmem_object
fields except for drm_gem_shmem_object.base (which is drm_gem_object).

> Side question: is drm_gem_object_funcs.vmap(..) /
> drm_gem_object_funcs.vunmap(..) even possible for hostmem?

Sure.  Using ioremap should work, after asking the host to map the
object at some location in the pci bar.

cheers,
  Gerd