On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 19:33, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Sep 2021, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > A vague goal is to have the vfunc table be the api between > > wm and display, not having direction function calls cross > > the boundary. > > > > This aligns the legacy update_wm with the newer vfuncs. > > > > The comment probably needs to live somewhere else, it seems > > like it should live in the pm side though not the display side, > > but I brought it along for the ride. > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 39 ------------------- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.h | 1 - > > 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > index d95283bf2631..b495371c1889 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > > We haven't been axing stuff out of intel_display.c so we could add > somethign else back! ;) > > A new file for watermarks or display pm? Ville? The main reason I landed it there, was because all the other calls to the wm funcs are in intel_display, and this wrapper is very small and ends up being a static, the comment on the other hand, I've no idea where it should have landed. Dave.
