Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] drm/i915: Split out intel_vtd_active and run_as_guest to own header

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

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.

Regards,

Tvrtko