On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:14:27 +0200
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:44:15AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Alex Williamson
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:32 AM
> >
> > That almost begins to look reasonable, but then we can only expose this
> > for mdev devices, what if we were to hack a back door into a directly
> > assigned GPU that tracks the location of active display in the
> > framebuffer and implement the GFX_PLANE interface for that? We have no
> > sysfs representation for either the template or the actual device for
> > anything other than mdev. This inconsistency with physically assigned
> > devices has been one of my arguments against enhancing mdev sysfs.
>
> One possible option is to wrap directly assigned GPU into a mdev. The
> parent driver could be a dummy PCI driver which does basic PCI
> initialization, and then provide hooks for vendor-specific hack.
Thowing amdgpu into the mix. Looks they have vgpu support too, but
using sriov instead of mdev. Having VFIO_GFX support surely looks
useful there. Adding a mdev dependency to the VFIO_GFX api would makes
things more complicated there for (IMHO) no good reason ...
Yes, it may be that a device wanting to implement display or migration
might take the mdev approach, but that should be a choice of the
implementation, not a requirement imposed by the API. Thanks,
Alex