Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 0/1] Splitting up platform-specific calls

[Casey Bowman <casey.g.bowman@intel.com>]

CC'ing more reviewers for comments.

On 1/20/22 14:16, Casey Bowman wrote:
> 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).
>
> Casey Bowman (1):
>    i915/drm: Split out x86 and arm64 functionality
>
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile              |  4 +++
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h            |  6 +---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_platform.h       | 16 +++++++++++
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_platform_arm64.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_platform_x86.c   | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>   5 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_platform.h
>   create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_platform_arm64.c
>   create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_platform_x86.c
>