[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/psr: Split sel fetch plane configuration into arm and noarm

[Luca Coelho]

On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 14:00 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Luca Coelho <luca at coelho.fi> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 12:44 +0200, Jouni Högander wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > > > index 7d4a15a283a0..63b79c611932 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_psr.c
> > > > @@ -1559,7 +1559,26 @@ void intel_psr2_disable_plane_sel_fetch(struct intel_plane *plane,
> > > >  	intel_de_write_fw(dev_priv, PLANE_SEL_FETCH_CTL(pipe, plane->id), 0);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > -void intel_psr2_program_plane_sel_fetch(struct intel_plane *plane,
> > > > +void intel_psr2_program_plane_sel_fetch_arm(struct intel_plane *plane,
> > > > +					const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > > > +					const struct intel_plane_state *plane_state,
> > > > +					int color_plane)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(plane->base.dev);
> > 
> > Should you use i915 instead of dev_priv? I've heard and read elsewhere
> > that this is generally a desired change.  Much easier to use always the
> > same local name for this kind of thing.  Though this file is already
> > interspersed with both versions...
> 
> Basically the only reason to use dev_priv for new code is to deal with
> some register macros that still have implicit dev_priv in
> them. Otherwise, i915 should be used, and when convenient, dev_priv
> should be converted to i915 while touching the code anyway (in a
> separate patch, but while you're there).

Thanks for the clarification! In this case we're not using any of the
macros, AFAICT, so I guess it's better to go with i915 already? And I
think it should even be in this same patch, since it's a new function
anyway.


> The implicit dev_priv dependencies in the register macros are a bit
> annoying to fix, and it's been going slow. In retrospect maybe the right
> thing would have been to just sed the parameter to all of them
> everywhere and be done with it for good. Not too late now, I guess, and
> I'd take the patches in a heartbeat if someone were to step up and do
> it.

I see that there is a boatload of register macros using it... I won't
promise, but I think it would be a good exercise for a n00b like me to
make this patch, though I already foresee another boatload of conflicts
with the internal trees and everything...

--
Cheers,
Luca.