[Intel-gfx] [RFC 1/4] drm/i915/pmu: Make more struct i915_pmu centric

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-08-01 11:46:06)
> On Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:18:22 +0200, Tvrtko Ursulin  
> <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> >
> > Just tidy the code a bit by removing a sea of overly verbose i915->pmu.*.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 194 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 104 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c  
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> > index eff86483bec0..12008966b00e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> > @@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ static unsigned int event_enabled_bit(struct  
> > perf_event *event)
> >       return config_enabled_bit(event->attr.config);
> >  }
> > -static bool pmu_needs_timer(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool  
> > gpu_active)
> > +static bool pmu_needs_timer(struct i915_pmu *pmu, bool gpu_active)
> >  {
> > +     struct drm_i915_private *i915 = container_of(pmu, typeof(*i915), pmu);
> 
> maybe this can be promoted to pmu_to_i915() ?
> 
> >       u64 enable;
> >       /*
> > @@ -83,7 +84,7 @@ static bool pmu_needs_timer(struct drm_i915_private  
> > *i915, bool gpu_active)
> >        *
> >        * We start with a bitmask of all currently enabled events.
> >        */
> > -     enable = i915->pmu.enable;
> > +     enable = pmu->enable;
> >       /*
> >        * Mask out all the ones which do not need the timer, or in
> > @@ -114,24 +115,26 @@ static bool pmu_needs_timer(struct  
> > drm_i915_private *i915, bool gpu_active)
> > void i915_pmu_gt_parked(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> 
> you should be more consistent and change this one too

This is definitely not the final form, so I'm not bothered. I foresee
there being a mix of device-level pmu and gt-level pmu, with this being
part of the latter.
-Chris