Re: refactor the i915 GVT support and move to the modern mdev API v3

[Wang, Zhi A]

On 4/14/22 1:43 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 04:40:11PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 
>>>>>> git clone https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux -b for-christoph
>>>>>
>>>>> There are alot of extra commits on there - is it possible to base this
>>>>> straight on rc1 not on some kind of existing DRM tree?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did you choose drm/i915/fbc: Call intel_fbc_activate() directly
>>>>> from frontbuffer flush  as a base?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jason:
>>>>
>>>> I updated the branch. You can check if those are what you are expecting. :)
>>>
>>> This is better, except for the first commit:
>>>
>>>  [DON'T PULL] drm/i915/dmc: split out dmc registers to a separate file
>>>  THIS PATCH WILL GO THROUGH DRM-INTEL-NEXT TO UPSTREAM
>>>
>>>  Clean up the massive i915_reg.h a bit with this isolated set of
>>>  registers.
>>>
>>>  v2: Remove stale comment (Lucas)
>>>
>>> Clean the commit message and send that as a proper PR to
>>> drm-intel-next, then everything else is OK.
>>
>> It's already in drm-intel-next, I guess the problem is basing the branch
>> on something that doesn't have it. I'd probably just base everything
>> cleanly on -rc1, and whoever does the merge between the two will need to
>> account for the missing include in the result. It's just adding one line
>> in the right place.
> 
> That makes sense to me, especially if you can do the merge fixup
> internally in DRM.
> 
> So drop the '[DONT PULL]' commit and send a PR to the next DRM tree -
> when that is confirmed send the same PR to vfio,

I updated the branch again, but I am confused. What is the purpose of sending
the PR to next DRM tree? I suppose all the patches will go through VFIO? If
I understand correctly?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
>