Hi Tvrtko, > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > static int > > > > > intel_gt_tile_setup(struct intel_gt *gt, unsigned int id, phys_addr_t phys_addr) > > > > > > > > we don't actually need 'id', it's gt->info.id. It's introduced in > > > > patch 3 with the value '0' but it's not needed. > > > > > > I have a suspicion code got munged up over endless rebases and refactors. > > > > > > This patch is the one which introduces the id member to gt->info. But it is not setting it, even though I suspect the intent was for intel_gt_tile_setup to do that. > > > > > > Instead gt->info.id is only set to a valid value in last patch of this series inside intel_gt_probe_all: > > > > > > + gt->i915 = i915; > > > + gt->name = gtdef->name; > > > + gt->type = gtdef->type; > > > + gt->info.engine_mask = gtdef->engine_mask; > > > + gt->info.id = i; > > > + > > > + drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "Setting up %s %u\n", gt->name, gt->info.id); > > > + ret = intel_gt_tile_setup(gt, i, phys_addr + gtdef->mapping_base); > > > > > > And intel_gt_tile_setup then calls __intel_gt_init_early which assigns gt->i915 yet again. > > > > > > So I'd say there is probably space to bring this all into a more streamlined flow, even more than what you suggest below. > > > > yes, I noticed them! > > > > Patch 3, 5 and 10 are very much connected with each other: 3 > > prepares for one tile, 5 prepares for multitile and 10 does the > > multitile. While in between other patches are doing other things. > > > > On top of some cleanups we could also rearrange the patches with > > some squashing and reordering to have them a bit more linear and > > also easier to review. > > Yes. Maybe make intel_gt_tile_setup accept more arguments so it can be truly > used to setup a gt? > > intel_gt_tile_setup(gt, id, name, type, engine_mask) > > The usual thing where patch which adds something extends the prototype to > include more stuff. If that applies here. > > I know it is originally my patch but I don't have the time to rework it, > much less the whole series, so usual dispensation to take over authorship if > changes are large applies. as no one is stepping forward, if you and Matt are OK, I can try to venture in some refactoring of these three patches (3, 5 and 10). Andi
