refactor the i915 GVT support and move to the modern mdev API v3

[Wang, Zhi A]

On 4/14/22 1:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:20:42PM +0000, Wang, Zhi A wrote:
>> On 4/13/22 11:20 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:13:06PM +0000, Wang, Zhi A wrote:
>>>> Hi folks:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks so much for the efforts. I prepared a branch which contains all our patches.The aim of the branch is for the VFIO maintainers to pull the whole bunch easily after the drm-intel-next got merged through drm (as one of the MMIO patches depends on a patch in drm-intel-next).
>>>>
>>>> I dropped patch 4 and patch 5 as they have been covered by Jani's patches. Some conflicts was solved.
>>>> QA is going to test it today. 
>>>>
>>>> You can find it here:
>>>>
>>>> git clone https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux -b for-christoph
>>>
>>> There are alot of extra commits on there - is it possible to base this
>>> straight on rc1 not on some kind of existing DRM tree?
>>>
>>> Why did you choose drm/i915/fbc: Call intel_fbc_activate() directly
>>> from frontbuffer flush  as a base?
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jason:
>>
This one belongs to i915, which has already been queued in drm-intel-next, but
not yet reached to the top. When it is landed in -rc, I will rebase this branch
on it, then we can drop this patch in this branch.

>> I updated the branch. You can check if those are what you are expecting. :)
> 
> This is better, except for the first commit:
> 
>  [DON'T PULL] drm/i915/dmc: split out dmc registers to a separate file
>  THIS PATCH WILL GO THROUGH DRM-INTEL-NEXT TO UPSTREAM
> 
>  Clean up the massive i915_reg.h a bit with this isolated set of
>  registers.
> 
>  v2: Remove stale comment (Lucas)
> 
> Clean the commit message and send that as a proper PR to
> drm-intel-next, then everything else is OK.
> 
> Jason
>