[Intel-xe] [PATCH v2 05/11] drm/xe: Remove dependency on intel_gt_regs.h

[Vivi, Rodrigo]

On Fri, 2023-02-24 at 10:34 -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:29:14AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 10:06:14AM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 04:52:20PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > Create regs/xe_gt_regs.h file with all the registers and bit
> > > > definitions used by the xe driver. Eventually the registers may
> > > > be
> > > > defined in a different way and since xe doesn't supported below
> > > > gen12,
> > > > the number of registers touched is much smaller, so create a
> > > > new header.
> > > > 
> > > > The definitions themselves are direct copy from the
> > > > gt/intel_gt_regs.h file, just sorting the registers by address.
> > > > Cleaning those up and adhering to a common coding style is left
> > > > for
> > > > later.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg_defs.h  |   2 +
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_gt_regs.h  | 287
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_execlist.c      |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c    |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c          |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c            |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_clock.c      |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_mcr.c        |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc.c           |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ads.c       |   4 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_pc.c        |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_engine.c     |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_irq.c           |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_lrc.c           |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mmio.c          |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_mocs.c          |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_reg_sr.c        |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_reg_whitelist.c |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c      |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_tuning.c        |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wa.c            |   2 +-
> > > >  21 files changed, 308 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/regs/xe_gt_regs.h
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg_defs.h
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg_defs.h
> > > > index b5e06b6a9478..a6080c983a77 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg_defs.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg_defs.h
> > > > @@ -136,6 +136,8 @@ typedef struct {
> > > >         u32 reg;
> > > >  } i915_mcr_reg_t;
> > > > 
> > > > +#define MCR_REG(offset)        ((const i915_mcr_reg_t){ .reg =
> > > > (offset) })
> > > 
> > > Should there be a corresponding removal of this definition from
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h ?
> > > 
> > > Aside from that,
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper at intel.com>
> > 
> > 
> > good catch. I was trying not to change the i915 headers, but this
> > one went unoticed while fixing the build.
> > 
> > I wonder if this should be a separate patch to merge in
> > drm-intel-next by itself. It's harmless though and we could keep it
> > in the xe branch, as long as also removing from
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h
> > 
> > Rodrigo / Matt, are you ok with this approach?

yeap, anything touching outside xe needs a separated patch anyway.
and I believe it can already be sent do intel-gfx, right?!

> 
> Either way sounds fine to me.
> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> > 
> > Lucas De Marchi
>