On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 02:09:33PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 24/03/2022 18:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 24/03/2022 11:57, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 24/03/2022 09:31, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote: >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com >> >> ... >> >> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com >> Cc: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com >> Cc: Lucas De Marchi lucas.demarchi@intel.com >> --- >> Typed up how I see it - bash away. > > So is intel_vtd_active() so performance critical that it needs to be > inline? > > We're passing struct drm_i915_private * everywhere we can, and it just > feels silly to use struct drm_device * to avoid the include. > > Static inlines considered harmful. :p
Same as it is ;), and gee, who was it that he said he was just trying to declutter i915_drv.h.. ;p
Not at the cost of clarity elsewhere!
To be clear now you oppose intel_vtd_active taking struct device? I thought you expressed general agreement when I presented the idea in the previous thread.
I don't mind hugely to go either way, but I also don't see how taking struct device makes anything unclear. (I only think intel_vtd_run_as_guest is really wrong in this story but that's old news.)
And if I make it take i915 then I would want to name it i915_vtd_active as well. But then you wouldn't like that.
Should we just stuff all this into i915_utils for now, as I think Lucas suggested? Static inline or not, I don't care.
Just general grumpiness.
Acked-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com
No worries. Ack is for this version or with i915_ prefixes in i915_utils.h/c?
Both. Either. ;)
great, let's go with the one adding it to i915_util.h/c then.
thanks Lucas De Marchi
Regards,
Tvrtko
-- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center