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

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 07:47:04PM +0000, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>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?!

the problem is to depend on that patch. If we are rebasing the
drm-xe-next branch with a non-ff. Then we could simply have the patch
in both places and handle the conflict. If we are not rebasing, then
is it ok to have the patch in both places and deal with a possible
conflict in a merge (or backmerge if we are not yet in drm-next)?

Lucas De Marchi