From: Casey Bowman <casey.g.bowman@intel.com>
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: lucas.demarchi@intel.com, daniel.vetter@intel.com
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 0/1] Splitting up platform-specific calls
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:42:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220322184237.397484-1-casey.g.bowman@intel.com> (raw)
In this RFC I would like to ask the community their thoughts
on how we can best handle splitting architecture-specific
calls.
I would like to address the following:
1. How do we want to split architecture calls? Different object files
per platform? Separate function calls within the same object file?
2. How do we address dummy functions? If we have a function call that is
used for one or more platforms, but is not used in another, what should
we do for this case?
I've given an example of splitting an architecture call
in my patch with run_as_guest() being split into different
implementations for x86 and arm64 in separate object files, sharing
a single header.
Another suggestion from Michael (michael.cheng@intel.com) involved
using a single object file, a single header, and splitting various
functions calls via ifdefs in the header file.
I would appreciate any input on how we can avoid scaling issues when
including multiple architectures and multiple functions (as the number
of function calls will inevitably increase with more architectures).
v2: Revised to use kernel's platform-splitting scheme.
v3: Revised to use simple if-else structure.
v4: Modified into more arch-neutral split.
Casey Bowman (1):
i915/drm: Split run_as_guest into x86 and non-x86
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
--
2.25.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-03-22 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-22 18:42 Casey Bowman [this message]
2022-03-22 18:42 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 1/1] i915/drm: Split run_as_guest into x86 and non-x86 Casey Bowman
2022-03-22 19:18 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for Splitting up platform-specific calls (rev4) Patchwork
2022-03-22 19:22 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.DOCS: " Patchwork
2022-03-22 19:51 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-03-23 4:33 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220322184237.397484-1-casey.g.bowman@intel.com \
--to=casey.g.bowman@intel.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox