On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 05:58:21 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > @@ -1251,7 +1251,7 @@ static int i915_drm_resume(struct drm_device *dev) > > > > disable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(&dev_priv->runtime_pm); > > > > - ret = intel_pcode_init(dev_priv); > > + ret = intel_gt_pcode_init(dev_priv); > > I didn't like we have this indirection i915 -> gt -> i915... > At the same time I understand you don't want to duplicate the for_each with > the error msg and all in here. > > So, what about having in this file a > static int __init_pcode(dev_priv) > ?! Sure, will fix. > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pcode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pcode.c > > index ac727546868e..66020b2e461f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pcode.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pcode.c > > @@ -52,14 +52,12 @@ static int gen7_check_mailbox_status(u32 mbox) > > } > > } > > > > -static int __snb_pcode_rw(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u32 mbox, > > +static int intel_pcode_rw(struct intel_uncore *uncore, u32 mbox, > > I'm not sure if I like the idea of the renaming here... > I mean, it looks nicer indeed, but at the same time the "intel_" > make it looks it is exported one. Sure, will fix. > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pcode.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pcode.h > > @@ -8,17 +8,32 @@ > > > > #include <linux/types.h> > > > > +struct intel_uncore; > > struct drm_i915_private; > > > > -int snb_pcode_read(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u32 mbox, u32 *val, u32 *val1); > > -int snb_pcode_write_timeout(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u32 mbox, u32 val, > > - int fast_timeout_us, int slow_timeout_ms); > > -#define snb_pcode_write(i915, mbox, val) \ > > +int intel_pcode_read(struct intel_uncore *uncore, u32 mbox, u32 *val, u32 *val1); > > + > > +int intel_pcode_write_timeout(struct intel_uncore *uncore, u32 mbox, u32 val, > > + int fast_timeout_us, int slow_timeout_ms); > > + > > +#define intel_pcode_write(uncore, mbox, val) \ > > + intel_pcode_write_timeout(uncore, mbox, val, 500, 0) > > + > > +int intel_pcode_request(struct intel_uncore *uncore, u32 mbox, u32 request, > > + u32 reply_mask, u32 reply, int timeout_base_ms); > > + > > +#define snb_pcode_read(i915, mbox, val, val1) \ > > + intel_pcode_read(&(i915)->uncore, mbox, val, val1) > > + > > +#define snb_pcode_write_timeout(i915, mbox, val, fast_timeout_us, slow_timeout_ms) \ > > + intel_pcode_write_timeout(&(i915)->uncore, mbox, val, fast_timeout_us, slow_timeout_ms) > > + > > +#define snb_pcode_write(i915, mbox, val) \ > > snb_pcode_write_timeout(i915, mbox, val, 500, 0) > > > > -int skl_pcode_request(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u32 mbox, u32 request, > > - u32 reply_mask, u32 reply, int timeout_base_ms); > > +#define skl_pcode_request(i915, mbox, request, reply_mask, reply, timeout_base_ms) \ > > + intel_pcode_request(&(i915)->uncore, mbox, request, reply_mask, reply, timeout_base_ms) > > and for the exported one, since we are renaming it, shouldn't we rename > all the users instead of creating these defines? Ok, in that case we might as well retain the original function names (snb_/skl_ etc. and just change the first argument to uncore)? So will do that in the next rev unless we think we want to rename everything to intel_? Thanks. -- Ashutosh
