[Intel-gfx] [PULL] gvt-gt-next

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2021-01-21 15:15:19)
>> Quoting Zhenyu Wang (2021-01-21 06:08:25)
>> > On 2021.01.20 14:21:53 +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>> > > Quoting Zhenyu Wang (2021-01-18 07:07:39)
>> > > > 
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > > 
>> > > > This is GVT next for 5.12 against drm-intel-gt-next which is mostly
>> > > > for cmd parser enhancement which adds extra check on register load
>> > > > depending on initial context and handles vGPU register state
>> > > > accordingly.
>> > > 
>> > > I think we were bit inconclusive on this last time.
>> > >
>> > 
>> > Sorry about that, I was thinking we might just follow your previous idea.
>> > 
>> > > Even if this does not have any dependency to drm-intel-gt-next I can
>> > > pull this to drm-intel-gt-next. The only caveat is that for any -fixes,
>> > > there needs to be a backmerge to drm-intel-next.
>> > > 
>> > > Not sure if this is a problem. Do we want to make it a recurring practice
>> > > to backmerge drm-intel-gt-next into drm-intel-next after it lands in
>> > > drm-next?
>> > >
>> > 
>> > So -gt-next won't do -gt-next-fixes, right? For -next-fixes, we always do
>> > drm-next backmerge, right?
>> > 
>> > > So to recap: Do we want to pull to drm-intel-next whenever there are no
>> > > dependencies to drm-intel-gt-next, to avoid a backmerge?
>> > 
>> > yeah, that's fine to me. But for this time gvt-next pull, it's really targeting
>> > for -gt-next which has some dependency, I can double check to confirm.
>> 
>> I've now pulled to drm-intel-gt-next.
>
> There was a header test build failure noticed by Chris:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/cmd_parser.h:53:44: error: ‘struct intel_vgpu’ declared inside parameter list will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration [-Werror]
>    53 | void intel_gvt_update_reg_whitelist(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu);

Please use CONFIG_DRM_I915_WERROR=y during development.

BR,
Jani.


>
> It's now fixed in drm-intel-gt-next, you may want to backmerge after
> drm-next lands the drm-intel-gt-next PR.
>
> Regards, Joonas
>
>> 
>> Indeed any changes in i915/gt side that affect GVT would become
>> dependencies.
>> 
>> I think it would be good to continue on the plan to build GVT as a
>> completely separate module and have a clear definition of the interface
>> between the two.
>> 
>> Regards, Joonas
>> 
>> > Thanks.
>> > 
>> > > Or do we want
>> > > to always do a backmerge in anticipation of -fixes.
>> > > 
>> > > Regards, Joonas
>> > > 
>> > > > Thanks.
>> > > > --
>> > > > The following changes since commit fe7bcfaeb2b775f257348dc7b935f8e80eef3e7d:
>> > > > 
>> > > >   drm/i915/gt: Refactor heartbeat request construction and submission (2020-12-24 18:07:26 +0000)
>> > > > 
>> > > > are available in the Git repository at:
>> > > > 
>> > > >   https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux tags/gvt-gt-next-2021-01-18
>> > > > 
>> > > > for you to fetch changes up to 02dd2b12a685944c4d52c569d05f636372a7b6c7:
>> > > > 
>> > > >   drm/i915/gvt: unify lri cmd handler and mmio handlers (2020-12-25 11:16:32 +0800)
>> > > > 
>> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > gvt-gt-next-2021-01-18
>> > > > 
>> > > > - GVT cmd parser enhancement against guest context (Yan)
>> > > > 
>> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > Yan Zhao (11):
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: parse init context to update cmd accessible reg whitelist
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: scan VM ctx pages
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: filter cmds "srm" and "lrm" in cmd_handler
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: filter cmds "lrr-src" and "lrr-dst" in cmd_handler
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: filter cmd "pipe-ctrl" in cmd_handler
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: export find_mmio_info
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: make width of mmio_attribute bigger
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: introduce a new flag F_CMD_WRITE_PATCH
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: statically set F_CMD_WRITE_PATCH flag
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: update F_CMD_WRITE_PATCH flag when parsing init ctx
>> > > >       drm/i915/gvt: unify lri cmd handler and mmio handlers
>> > > > 
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/cmd_parser.c | 335 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/cmd_parser.h |   4 +
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gvt.h        |  37 +++-
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/handlers.c   |  15 +-
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/mmio.h       |   3 +
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/reg.h        |   2 +
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c  |  22 ++-
>> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c       |   4 +-
>> > > >  8 files changed, 339 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center