[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] x86/quirks: Replace QFLAG_APPLY_ONCE with static locals

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 05:28:29PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 07:06:45PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 04:21:28PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 06:08:05PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 03:30:43PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > The flags are only used to mark a quirk to be called once and nothing
> > > > > else. Also, that logic may not be appropriate if the quirk wants to
> > > > > do additional filtering and set quirk as applied by itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > So replace the uses of QFLAG_APPLY_ONCE with static local variables in
> > > > > the few quirks that use this logic and remove all the flags logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas at google.com>
> > > >
> > > > Only occurred to me now, but another, less intrusive approach would be
> > > > to just remove QFLAG_APPLY_ONCE from intel_graphics_quirks() and do
> > > > its bookkeeping internally, e.g.,
> > > 
> > > that is actually what I suggested after your comment in v2: this would
> > > be the first patch with "minimal fix". But then to keep it consistent
> > > with the other calls to follow up with additional patches on top
> > > converting them as well.  Maybe what I wrote wasn't clear in the
> > > direction? Copying it here:
> > > 
> > > 	1) add the static local only to intel graphics quirk  and remove the
> > > 	flag from this item
> > > 	2 and 3) add the static local to other functions and remove the flag
> > > 	from those items
> > > 	4) remove the flag from the table, the defines and its usage.
> > > 	5) fix the coding style (to be clear, it's already wrong, not
> > > 	something wrong introduced here... maybe could be squashed in (4)?)
> > 
> > Oh, sorry, I guess I just skimmed over that without really
> > comprehending it.
> > 
> > Although the patch below is basically just 1 from above and doesn't
> > require any changes to the other functions or the flags themselves
> > (2-4 above).
> 
> Yes, but I would do the rest of the conversion anyway. It would be odd
> to be inconsistent with just a few functions. So in the end I think we
> would achieve the same goal.
> 
> I would really prefer this approach, having the bug fix first, if I was
> concerned about having to backport this to linux-stable beyond 5.10.y
> (we have a trivial conflict on 5.10).
> 
> However given this situation is new (Intel GPU + Intel Discrete GPU)
> rare (it also needs a PCI topology in a certain way to reproduce it),
> I'm not too concerned. Not even sure if it's worth submitting to
> linux-stable.

+1 on the minimal fix approach first and send that to stable 5.10+.
We will hit this case for sure.

also +1 on the discussed ideas as a follow up.

> 
> I'll wait others to chime in on one way vs the other.
> 
> thanks
> Lucas De Marchi