On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:57:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 05:43:52PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > In order to encapsulate FBC harder let's just move the debugfs > >> > stuff into intel_fbc.c. > >> > >> Mmmh, I've kind of moved towards a split where i915_debugfs.c and > >> intel_display_debugfs.c have all the debugfs boilerplate, while the > >> implementation files have the guts with struct drm_i915_private *i915 > >> (or something more specific) and struct seq_file *m passed in. > >> > >> In some ways the split is arbitrary, but I kind of find the debugfs > >> boilerplate a distraction in the implementation files, and we also skip > >> building the debugfs files completely for CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=n. I don't > >> think I'd want to add #ifdefs on that spread around either. > > > > If we want to keep the debugfs in a separate file then we'll have to > > expose the guts of the FBC implementation in intel_fbc.h (or some other > > header) just for that, or we add a whole bunch of otherwise useless > > functions that pretend to provide some higher level of abstraction. > > > > Not really a fan of either of those options. > > Obviously I'm in favour of hiding the guts, no question about it. I'm > also very much in favour of moving the details out of our *debugfs.c > files. It's just a question of where to draw the line, and which side of > the line the debugfs boilerplate lands. > > Which leaves us either your approach in the patch at hand, or adding the > fbc helper functions for debugfs, which would be something like: > > intel_fbc_get_status > intel_fbc_get_false_color > intel_fbc_set_false_color So I guess you're suggesting that just the DEFINE_ATTRIBUTE and debugfs_create_file() stuff should remain in intel_display_debugfs.c? Not sure that approach has any benefits whatsoever. The get/set functions will need to be non-static and they'll get included in the binary whether or not debugfs is enabled or not (unless you lto it perhaps). If everything is in intel_fbc.c all that stuff just gets optimized out entirely when not needed. Also then I couldn't do this sort of stuff: if (fbc->funcs->set_false_color) debugfs_create_file(...) because that requires knowledge only available to intel_fbc.c. I'd need to add some kind of intel_fbc_has_false_color() thing just for that. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
