[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/21] drm/i915/wm: move the update watermark wrapper to display side.

[Dave Airlie]

On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 19:33, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2021, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
> >
> > A vague goal is to have the vfunc table be the api between
> > wm and display, not having direction function calls cross
> > the boundary.
> >
> > This aligns the legacy update_wm with the newer vfuncs.
> >
> > The comment probably needs to live somewhere else, it seems
> > like it should live in the pm side though not the display side,
> > but I brought it along for the ride.
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c              | 39 -------------------
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.h              |  1 -
> >  3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > index d95283bf2631..b495371c1889 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c
>
> We haven't been axing stuff out of intel_display.c so we could add
> somethign else back! ;)
>
> A new file for watermarks or display pm? Ville?

The main reason I landed it there, was because all the other calls to
the wm funcs are in intel_display, and this wrapper is very small and
ends up being a static, the comment on the other hand, I've no idea
where it should have landed.

Dave.