On 7/2/19 4:45 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 02/07/2019 11:34, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-07-02 11:23:11)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Some interrupt handling functions already have gt in their names
suggesting them as obvious candidates to make them take struct intel_gt
instead of i915.
Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
Co-authored-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
static void
-gen11_other_irq_handler(struct drm_i915_private * const i915,
- const u8 instance, const u16 iir)
+gen11_other_irq_handler(struct intel_gt *gt, const u8 instance,
+ const u16 iir)
{
+ struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
+
if (instance == OTHER_GUC_INSTANCE)
return gen11_guc_irq_handler(i915, iir);
That looks like a candidate for gt as well. Even for the guc, the
interrupt vector is GT centric. I was hoping we could place guc/ parallel
to gt/, but it looks like it will indeed be a child of intel_gt.
Yeah. Daniele will deal with the GuC code paths.
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks. I'll also let Daniele comment on whether this refactoring fits
with his work before merging it.
Yup, works for me. On the whole series:
Acked-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>
Daniele
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
