[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH v3 1/1] i915/drm: Split out x86/arm64 for run_as_guest

[Casey Bowman]

Wanted to ping this older thread to find out where we stand with this patch,
Are we OK with the current state of these changes?

With more recent information gathered from feedback on other patches, would
we prefer changing this to a more arch-neutral control flow?

e.g.
#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86)
...
#else
...
#endif

Would we also prefer this RFC series be merged or would it be preferred to
create a new series instead?

Regards,
Casey

On 2/15/22 15:41, Casey Bowman wrote:
> Splitting out run_as_guest into platform-specific functions
> as arm64 does not support this functionality.
>
> Signed-off-by: Casey Bowman <casey.g.bowman at intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 8 ++++++++
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 1bca510a946d..fdec2b025540 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -1381,10 +1381,18 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915,
>   #define INTEL_DISPLAY_ENABLED(dev_priv) \
>   	(drm_WARN_ON(&(dev_priv)->drm, !HAS_DISPLAY(dev_priv)), !(dev_priv)->params.disable_display)
>   
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86)
>   static inline bool run_as_guest(void)
>   {
>   	return !hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NATIVE);
>   }
> +#elif IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64)
> +static inline bool run_as_guest(void)
> +{
> +	/* Not supported for arm64, so we return false  */
> +	return false;
> +}
> +#endif
>   
>   #define HAS_D12_PLANE_MINIMIZATION(dev_priv) (IS_ROCKETLAKE(dev_priv) || \
>   					      IS_ALDERLAKE_S(dev_priv))