Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 0/5] Use drm_clflush* instead of clflush

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 07/02/2022 12:44, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 04/02/2022 16:37, Michael Cheng wrote:
>>> This patch series re-work a few i915 functions to use drm_clflush_virt_range
>>> instead of calling clflush or clflushopt directly. This will prevent errors
>>> when building for non-x86 architectures.
>>>
>>> v2: s/PAGE_SIZE/sizeof(value) for Re-work intel_write_status_page and added
>>> more patches to convert additional clflush/clflushopt to use drm_clflush*.
>>> (Michael Cheng)
>>>
>>> v3: Drop invalidate_csb_entries and directly invoke drm_clflush_virt_ran
>>>
>>> v4: Remove extra memory barriers
>>>
>>> v5: s/cache_clflush_range/drm_clflush_virt_range
>>
>> Is anyone interested in this story noticing my open? I will repeat:
>>
>> How about we add i915_clflush_virt_range as static inline and by doing
>> so avoid adding function calls to code paths which are impossible on Arm
>> builds? Case in point relocations, probably execlists backend as well.
>>
>> Downside would be effectively duplicating drm_clfush_virt_range code.
>> But for me, (Also considering no other driver calls it so why it is
>> there? Should it be deleted?), that would be okay.
> 
> Keep it simple first, optimize later if necessary?

I don't think it would ever happen unless done from the start. :/

Regards,

Tvrtko