[Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe: Extend drm_xe_vm_bind_op

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 05:46:44PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> The bind api is extensible but for a single bind op, there
> is not a mechanism to extend. Add extensions field to
> struct drm_xe_vm_bind_op.

But why would you want to extend the operation?
Except for the destroy ones, every ioctl itself is extensible.

So, DRM_IOCTL_XE_VM_BIND is extensible. Why would we need to get
prepared to extend the operations themselves? And if we extend
the operation, what to do with the extension at the ioctl level?
which one has precedence? how to organize that?

> 
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
> Cc: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast at intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Dominik Grzegorzek <dominik.grzegorzek at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> index 86f16d50e9cc..5c6c86f5e5fc 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> @@ -552,6 +552,9 @@ struct drm_xe_vm_destroy {
>  };
>  
>  struct drm_xe_vm_bind_op {
> +	/** @extensions: Pointer to the first extension struct, if any */
> +	__u64 extensions;
> +
>  	/**
>  	 * @obj: GEM object to operate on, MBZ for MAP_USERPTR, MBZ for UNMAP
>  	 */
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>