[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/2] split out intel_display_power

[Jani Nikula]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2019, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-05-31 23:24:07)
>> Separate the display PM from the PCI-level runtime PM.
>> I'll follow this up with v2 of the rpm encapsulation series [1], but
>> I'd like to get this in before that to avoid having to carry this
>> big dumb diff in that series.
>
> With RUNTIME_PM_DEBUG disabled,
>
> add/remove: 3/1 grow/shrink: 6/8 up/down: 396/-393 (3)
> Function                                     old     new   delta
> intel_runtime_pm_release                       -     274    +274
> intel_runtime_pm_put_raw                       -      45     +45
> intel_runtime_pm_put_unchecked                10      48     +38
> intel_display_power_put_async_work           179     192     +13
> intel_display_power_flush_work               117     126      +9
> __intel_display_power_put_async              193     199      +6
> intel_runtime_pm_get_raw                       -       4      +4
> intel_display_power_grab_async_put_ref       117     121      +4
> __warned                                     469     472      +3
> intel_runtime_pm_get                          10       7      -3
> intel_power_domains_enable                    38      33      -5
> intel_display_power_put_unchecked             23      18      -5
> intel_display_power_get_if_enabled           143     138      -5
> intel_display_power_get                       84      79      -5
> intel_power_domains_suspend                  490     480     -10
> intel_power_domains_fini_hw                  116     106     -10
> release_async_put_domains                    220     203     -17
> __intel_runtime_pm_put.constprop             333       -    -333
> Total: Before=23394388, After=23394391, chg +0.00%
>
> which is my biggest worry when meddling with these, that we accidentally
> explode production code with unused debugging (all those wakerefs).
>
> Lgtm, I would like Jani to indicate that he's happy with this split as
> well since he has been looking at very similar ideas.

I might bikeshed the naming, from the POV that functions would be nice
to be (eventually) named based on the name of the file they reside
in. But I guess intel_display_power.[ch] is as good as any I could come
up with, and not everything is going to follow the naming pattern
anyway.

I'd still like to get an ack from Imre before merging, but from my side
this is,

Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>

Thanks for doing this.



> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center