On Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 All of this is cleaned up in https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116431/ BR, Jani. > > >> >> -- >> Gustavo Sousa -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
