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

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 06:05:32PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jan 2023, Luca Coelho <luca at coelho.fi> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 14:11 +0200, Luca Coelho wrote:
>>> 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...
>>
>> There were actually 10 boatloads of places to change:
>>
>>  187 files changed, 12104 insertions(+), 12104 deletions(-)
>>
>> ...but it _does_ compile. 😄
>>
>> Do you think this is fine? Lots of shuffle, but if you think it's okay,
>> I can send the patch out now.
>
>Heh, I said I'd take patchES, not everything together! ;)
>
>Rodrigo, Tvrtko, Joonas, thoughts?

If it's a sed or something that can be automated, I think it could be
ok as single patch as long as we find the right time to generate it,
when the trees are in sync.

I do remember doing a sed s/dev_priv/i915/ (or it was with a cocci
script, don't remember) a few years ago, and I'm
glad we are giving up the slow conversion and just ripping the
bandaid.

Lucas De Marchi