[v3,5/5] drm/xe: Enable 32bits build

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 09:14:14AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 04:16:12PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> Now that all the issues with 32bits are fixed, enable it again.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig
>> index 1b57ae38210d..1b0ef91a5d2c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig
>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>>  config DRM_XE
>>  	tristate "Intel Xe Graphics"
>> -	depends on DRM && PCI && MMU && (m || (y && KUNIT=y)) && 64BIT
>> +	depends on DRM && PCI && MMU && (m || (y && KUNIT=y))
>
>I am curious about changes like this. Enabling 32-bit builds results in
>build failures for mips_allmodconfig because the driver redefines END.
>END is also used as macro in assembler code, the define happens to be
>included for mips builds, and it would be difficult to change it there.
>
>Unlike the i915 code, DRM_XE is not marked as depending on x86. This means
>it will be built for pretty much all "allmodconfig" builds for all
>architectures. Yet, there have been recent complaints about "allmodconfig"
>builds of drm code causing build failures on "oddball" architectures.
>Is there an assumption that DRM_XE (or DRM in general) is manually
>excluded from all architectures where it fails to build ? If so, would

for all the reports we've been receiving we fixed the build and improved
CI to try to avoid the regressions. DRM_XE doesn't really depend on x86,
but I see your point of filtering out the "oddball architectures" or just
expose the ones we know it builds against. Yet, I don't see that
approach done in the wild in other drivers. At least on the build side, we
constantly check the reports from lkp like

https://lore.kernel.org/all/202403152008.KlwyYggO-lkp@intel.com/

which also includes mips:

	mips                              allnoconfig   gcc
	mips                             allyesconfig   gcc

is that not sufficient? allyesconfig should be covering it afaics

>it be possible to mark DRM_XE (and/or DRM in general) as depending on

+dri-devel and maintainers for the "DRM in general" part

Lucas De Marchi

>architectures where it is supported ? Maintaining a set of exclusions
>in test builds does not really scale, after all.
>
>Thanks,
>Guenter