[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/dsm: remove unnecessary dsm priv structure

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:47:09PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Pass a local acpi_handle around instead of having a static dsm priv
> structure. If we need it later, we can always move it to dev_priv, and
> the change at hand will make that easier as well.
> 
> Care is taken to preserve old behaviour, particularly using the last
> non-NULL acpi handle, whether it makes sense or not.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c
> index d1abf4bb7c81..6ba478e57b9b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_acpi.c
> @@ -12,10 +12,6 @@
>  #define INTEL_DSM_REVISION_ID 1 /* For Calpella anyway... */
>  #define INTEL_DSM_FN_PLATFORM_MUX_INFO 1 /* No args */
>  
> -static struct intel_dsm_priv {
> -	acpi_handle dhandle;
> -} intel_dsm_priv;
> -
>  static const guid_t intel_dsm_guid =
>  	GUID_INIT(0x7ed873d3, 0xc2d0, 0x4e4f,
>  		  0xa8, 0x54, 0x0f, 0x13, 0x17, 0xb0, 0x1c, 0x2c);
> @@ -72,12 +68,12 @@ static char *intel_dsm_mux_type(u8 type)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static void intel_dsm_platform_mux_info(void)
> +static void intel_dsm_platform_mux_info(acpi_handle dhandle)
>  {
>  	int i;
>  	union acpi_object *pkg, *connector_count;
>  
> -	pkg = acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed(intel_dsm_priv.dhandle, &intel_dsm_guid,
> +	pkg = acpi_evaluate_dsm_typed(dhandle, &intel_dsm_guid,
>  			INTEL_DSM_REVISION_ID, INTEL_DSM_FN_PLATFORM_MUX_INFO,
>  			NULL, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE);
>  	if (!pkg) {
> @@ -107,41 +103,40 @@ static void intel_dsm_platform_mux_info(void)
>  	ACPI_FREE(pkg);
>  }
>  
> -static bool intel_dsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +static acpi_handle intel_dsm_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  {
>  	acpi_handle dhandle;
>  
>  	dhandle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
>  	if (!dhandle)
> -		return false;
> +		return NULL;
>  
>  	if (!acpi_check_dsm(dhandle, &intel_dsm_guid, INTEL_DSM_REVISION_ID,
>  			    1 << INTEL_DSM_FN_PLATFORM_MUX_INFO)) {
>  		DRM_DEBUG_KMS("no _DSM method for intel device\n");
> -		return false;
> +		return NULL;
>  	}
>  
> -	intel_dsm_priv.dhandle = dhandle;
> -	intel_dsm_platform_mux_info();
> +	intel_dsm_platform_mux_info(dhandle);
>  
> -	return true;
> +	return dhandle;
>  }
>  
>  static bool intel_dsm_detect(void)
>  {
> +	acpi_handle dhandle = NULL;
>  	char acpi_method_name[255] = { 0 };
>  	struct acpi_buffer buffer = {sizeof(acpi_method_name), acpi_method_name};
>  	struct pci_dev *pdev = NULL;
> -	bool has_dsm = false;
>  	int vga_count = 0;
>  
>  	while ((pdev = pci_get_class(PCI_CLASS_DISPLAY_VGA << 8, pdev)) != NULL) {
>  		vga_count++;
> -		has_dsm |= intel_dsm_pci_probe(pdev);
> +		dhandle = intel_dsm_pci_probe(pdev) ?: dhandle;

I *think* gcc promises not to evaluate things twice with ?:, so
should be safe even if intel_dsm_pci_probe() has some side effects.

Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>

>  	}
>  
> -	if (vga_count == 2 && has_dsm) {
> -		acpi_get_name(intel_dsm_priv.dhandle, ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME, &buffer);
> +	if (vga_count == 2 && dhandle) {
> +		acpi_get_name(dhandle, ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME, &buffer);
>  		DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("vga_switcheroo: detected DSM switching method %s handle\n",
>  				 acpi_method_name);
>  		return true;
> -- 
> 2.11.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel