[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] i915/gvt: Introduce the mmio_table.c to support VFIO new mdev API

Zhi Wang zhi.wang.linux at gmail.com
Mon Feb 7 11:57:13 UTC 2022

On 2/7/22 05:48, Jani Nikula wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 08:28:13AM +0000, Wang, Zhi A wrote:
>>> 1) About having the mmio_table.h, I would like to keep the stuff in a
>>> dedicated header as putting them in intel_gvt.h might needs i915 guys
>>> to maintain it.
>>> 2) The other one is about if we should move the mmio_table.c into
>>> i915 folder. I guess we need the some comments from Jani. In the
>>> current version that I am testing, it's still in GVT folder. Guess we
>>> can submit a patch to move it to i915 folder later if Jani is ok
>>> about that.
>> Yes, let's have Jani chime in on these.  They're basically one and the
>> same issue.  This code will have to be built into into the core i915
>> driver even with my planned split, which is kindof the point of this
>> exercise.  I think it makes sense to use the subdirectories as boundaries
>> for where the code ends up and not to declarare maintainership boundaries,
>> but it will be up to the i915 and gvt maintainers to decide that.
> Agreed. If there's going to be a gvt.ko, I think all of gvt/ should be
> part of that module, nothing more, nothing less.
> The gvt related files in i915/ should probably be named intel_gvt* or
> something, ditto for function naming, and we'll probably want patches
> touching them be Cc'd to intel-gfx list.
> Joonas, Rodrigo, Tvrtko, thoughts?
> BR,
> Jani.

Hi Christoph and Jani:

Thanks for the comments. It would be nice that people can achieve a 
agreement. I am OK with both of the options and also moving some files 
into different folders doesn't needs me to do the full test run again. :)



More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list