[RFC] drm/i915: Split out intel_vtd_active and run_as_guest to own header

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 24/03/2022 18:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 24/03/2022 11:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2022 09:31, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Typed up how I see it - bash away.
>>>>>
>>>>> So is intel_vtd_active() so performance critical that it needs to be
>>>>> inline?
>>>>>
>>>>> We're passing struct drm_i915_private * everywhere we can, and it just
>>>>> feels silly to use struct drm_device * to avoid the include.
>>>>>
>>>>> Static inlines considered harmful. :p
>>>>
>>>> Same as it is ;), and gee, who was it that he said he was just trying to
>>>> declutter i915_drv.h.. ;p
>>>
>>> Not at the cost of clarity elsewhere!
>>
>> To be clear now you oppose intel_vtd_active taking struct device? I
>> thought you expressed general agreement when I presented the idea in the
>> previous thread.
>>
>> I don't mind hugely to go either way, but I also don't see how taking
>> struct device makes anything unclear. (I only think
>> intel_vtd_run_as_guest is really wrong in this story but that's old news.)
>>
>> And if I make it take i915 then I would want to name it i915_vtd_active
>> as well. But then you wouldn't like that.
>>
>> Should we just stuff all this into i915_utils for now, as I think Lucas
>> suggested? Static inline or not, I don't care.
> 
> Just general grumpiness.
> 
> Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>

No worries. Ack is for this version or with i915_ prefixes in 
i915_utils.h/c?

Regards,

Tvrtko