[Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 6/6] lib/igt_device_scan: Improve Intel discrete GPU selection

[Kamil Konieczny]

Hi,

On 2023-01-30 at 11:04:07 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 27/01/2023 16:17, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
> > Hi Tvrtko,
> > 
> > On 2023-01-27 at 11:12:41 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Now that DRM subsystem can contain PCI cards with the vendor set to Intel
> > > but they are not Intel GPUs, we need a better selection logic than looking
> > > at the vendor. Use the driver name instead.
> > > 
> > > Caveat that the driver key was on a blacklist so far, and although I can't
> > > imagine it can be slow to probe, this is something to double check.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Zbigniew Kempczyński <zbigniew.kempczynski at intel.com>
> > 
> > Please send this as separate patch, not in this series.
> 
> Yeah I was lazy and wanting to save time so okay.
> 

Well maybe next time, I already merged your series without 5/6,
that one were merged some time ago.

Regards,
Kamil

> > > ---
> > >   lib/igt_device_scan.c | 7 +++++--
> > >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/lib/igt_device_scan.c b/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> > > index ed128d24dd10..8b767eed202d 100644
> > > --- a/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> > > +++ b/lib/igt_device_scan.c
> > > @@ -237,6 +237,7 @@ struct igt_device {
> > >   	char *vendor;
> > >   	char *device;
> > >   	char *pci_slot_name;
> > > +	char *driver;
> > >   	int gpu_index; /* For more than one GPU with same vendor and device. */
> > >   	char *codename; /* For grouping by codename */
> > > @@ -440,7 +441,6 @@ static bool is_on_blacklist(const char *what)
> > >   				      "resource3", "resource4", "resource5",
> > >   				      "resource0_wc", "resource1_wc", "resource2_wc",
> > >   				      "resource3_wc", "resource4_wc", "resource5_wc",
> > > -				      "driver",
> > >   				      "uevent", NULL};
> > >   	const char *key;
> > >   	int i = 0;
> > > @@ -662,6 +662,8 @@ static struct igt_device *igt_device_new_from_udev(struct udev_device *dev)
> > >   		get_pci_vendor_device(idev, &vendor, &device);
> > >   		idev->codename = __pci_codename(vendor, device);
> > >   		idev->dev_type = __pci_devtype(vendor, device, idev->pci_slot_name);
> > > +		idev->driver = strdup_nullsafe(get_attr(idev, "driver"));
> > > +		igt_assert(idev->driver);
> > >   	}
> > >   	return idev;
> > > @@ -776,7 +778,7 @@ static bool __find_first_i915_card(struct igt_device_card *card, bool discrete)
> > >   	igt_list_for_each_entry(dev, &igt_devs.all, link) {
> > > -		if (!is_pci_subsystem(dev) || !is_vendor_matched(dev, "intel"))
> > > +		if (!is_pci_subsystem(dev) || strcmp(dev->driver, "i915"))
> > 
> > Put the comment here why it can be problematic to relay on driver name.
> 
> Function name being __find_first_*i915*_card is IMO enough so it feels any
> comment to the same effect would be redundant.
> 
> Hm if anything igt_device_find_integrated_card should be renamed..
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tvrtko
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Kamil
> > 
> > >   			continue;
> > >   		cmp = strncmp(dev->pci_slot_name, INTEGRATED_I915_GPU_PCI_ID,
> > > @@ -1023,6 +1025,7 @@ static void igt_device_free(struct igt_device *dev)
> > >   	free(dev->drm_render);
> > >   	free(dev->vendor);
> > >   	free(dev->device);
> > > +	free(dev->driver);
> > >   	free(dev->pci_slot_name);
> > >   	g_hash_table_destroy(dev->attrs_ht);
> > >   	g_hash_table_destroy(dev->props_ht);
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > >