On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:14:36PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:51:33AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:32:14AM -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote: > >> >> Start to move the initialization of some lock from > >> >> i915_driver_early_probe(). > >> >> No dkl function is called prior to intel_setup_outputs(), so this is > >> >> a good place to initialize it. > >> > > >> > I disagree. We don't want to sprinke these all over the place. > >> > >> I'm thinking if only foo.c uses a lock, foo.c should initialize it, not > >> someone else. > > > > Perhaps. But I think there should be some consistent place in the higher > > level code where all such things get called instead of dropping each one > > individually into some random spot in the overlall display init flow. > > Agreed. Ops, I just saw this now, right after I cc'ed you in the other thread. So, probably good to hold this and do the entire refactor together of all those locks initialization so we find this common consistent place apparently... > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
