On Wed, 25 Oct 2023, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:20:25AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> >> On 24/10/2023 13:42, Jani Nikula wrote: >> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2023, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > Hi Jani, >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 06:02:55PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> > > > It's tedious to duplicate the container_of() everywhere. Add a helper. >> > > > >> > > > Also do the logical steps of first getting from struct perf_event to >> > > > struct i915_pmu, and then from struct i915_pmu to struct >> > > > drm_i915_private if needed, instead of perf_event->i915->pmu. Not all >> > > > places even need the i915 pointer. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 45 +++++++++++++++------------------ >> > > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c >> > > > index dcae2fcd8d36..d45b40ec6d47 100644 >> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c >> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c >> > > > @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ >> > > > static cpumask_t i915_pmu_cpumask; >> > > > static unsigned int i915_pmu_target_cpu = -1; >> > > > +static struct i915_pmu *event_to_pmu(struct perf_event *event) >> > > >> > > I would call it perfevent (or perf_event), event is too generic. >> > > We have other kind of events, too. >> > >> > Fair enough. >> >> Counter argument is that i915_pmu.c consistently names this event (which is >> likely lifted from other PMU drivers) so is the proposal to churn it all, or >> create an inconsistency? > > The first that comes to my mind is that the debugger is also > using the term "event"... on the other hand there is no debugger > in i915. Have you settled on this? I don't care either way, could apply either patch. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
