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

[Jani Nikula]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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?

Both. Either. ;)

>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center