On Tue, 2023-04-11 at 12:59 -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:51:04AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > 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... > > "internal" sw initialization of display-related stuff. It doesn't belong in > i915_driver_early_probe(), it makes harder to follow the sequence if we sprinkle > them around, like here in intel_setup_outputs. > > But I don't see why this couldn't be done in a higher level "sw > initialization of display-related stuff". Should we add an equivalent > of i915_driver_early_probe(), e.g. intel_display_early_probe()[1], and > move the display-related things from i915_driver_early_probe()? > > In that case, from xe we would call this function rather than > initializing these fields in xe_display_create() Sent another version, added intel_display_locks_init() that is called in the beginning of intel_modeset_init_noirq(). https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116326/ If this is accepted we can then move the other display locks from i915_driver_early_probe(). > > Lucas De Marchi > > [1] I don't like the name, but it follows what is already there > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
