Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 8/9] vfio/pci: use x86 naming instead of igd | From | Matthew Rosato <> | Date | Mon, 1 Feb 2021 12:49:12 -0500 |
| |
On 2/1/21 12:14 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:28:27 +0000 > Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> This patch doesn't change any logic but only align to the concept of >> vfio_pci_core extensions. Extensions that are related to a platform >> and not to a specific vendor of PCI devices should be part of the core >> driver. Extensions that are specific for PCI device vendor should go >> to a dedicated vendor vfio-pci driver. > > My understanding is that igd means support for Intel graphics, i.e. a > strict subset of x86. If there are other future extensions that e.g. > only make sense for some devices found only on AMD systems, I don't > think they should all be included under the same x86 umbrella. > > Similar reasoning for nvlink, that only seems to cover support for some > GPUs under Power, and is not a general platform-specific extension IIUC. > > We can arguably do the zdev -> s390 rename (as zpci appears only on > s390, and all PCI devices will be zpci on that platform), although I'm > not sure about the benefit.
As far as I can tell, there isn't any benefit for s390 it's just "re-branding" to match the platform name rather than the zdev moniker, which admittedly perhaps makes it more clear to someone outside of s390 that any PCI device on s390 is a zdev/zpci type, and thus will use this extension to vfio_pci(_core). This would still be true even if we added something later that builds atop it (e.g. a platform-specific device like ism-vfio-pci). Or for that matter, mlx5 via vfio-pci on s390x uses these zdev extensions today and would need to continue using them in a world where mlx5-vfio-pci.ko exists.
I guess all that to say: if such a rename matches the 'grand scheme' of this design where we treat arch-level extensions to vfio_pci(_core) as "vfio_pci_(arch)" then I'm not particularly opposed to the rename. But by itself it's not very exciting :)
> >> >> For now, x86 extensions will include only igd. >> >> Signed-off-by: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com> >> --- >> drivers/vfio/pci/Kconfig | 13 ++++++------- >> drivers/vfio/pci/Makefile | 2 +- >> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c | 2 +- >> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 2 +- >> drivers/vfio/pci/{vfio_pci_igd.c => vfio_pci_x86.c} | 0 >> 5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> rename drivers/vfio/pci/{vfio_pci_igd.c => vfio_pci_x86.c} (100%) > > (...) > >> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c >> index c559027def2d..e0e258c37fb5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_core.c >> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static int vfio_pci_enable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev) >> >> if (vfio_pci_is_vga(pdev) && >> pdev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL && >> - IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_IGD)) { >> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_X86)) { >> ret = vfio_pci_igd_init(vdev); > > This one explicitly checks for Intel devices, so I'm not sure why you > want to generalize this to x86? > >> if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) { >> pci_warn(pdev, "Failed to setup Intel IGD regions\n"); >
| |