On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Jani Nikula (2023-04-12 06:33:54) >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Quoting Mika Kahola (2023-04-03 05:50:43) >> >> @@ -8250,6 +8259,7 @@ void intel_init_display_hooks(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >> >> intel_color_init_hooks(dev_priv); >> >> intel_init_cdclk_hooks(dev_priv); >> >> intel_audio_hooks_init(dev_priv); >> >> + intel_init_pmdemand(dev_priv); >> > >> > I think intel_init_display_hooks() is meant to call functions setting up >> > function pointers, right? That would not be the case for intel_init_pmdemand(). >> > >> > I think we could rename intel_init_pmdemand() to >> > intel_pmdemand_init_early() and call it inside i915_driver_early_probe(). >> >> Please let's not add new direct calls to display from top level driver >> code. See also [1]. > > Okay. What would be the suggested place to do this SW-only initialization? > > Should we just merge the two init functions into one named intel_pmdemand_init() > and call the new function under intel_modeset_init_noirq()? Or add a new function intel_display_early_probe() or somesuch, which will call the early pmdemand init as well as intel_init_display_hooks() that is currently called from i915_driver_early_probe(). Bottom line, there should only be one high level call from i915_driver_early_probe(). There are similar needs for other things [1]. BR, Jani. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230411195918.hdxyir5w7dp2qx55@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- > Gustavo Sousa -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
