Hi,
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:10:12AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> The i915-display will start using the intel_runtime_pm_noresume.
> So we need to add the compat header before it.
Or "So we need to add it to the compat header before"?
>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> index fef969112b1d..ecaaef3df4bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> @@ -176,6 +176,14 @@ static inline intel_wakeref_t intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use(struct xe_runtime_p
> return xe_pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(xe);
> }
>
> +static inline intel_wakeref_t intel_runtime_pm_get_noresume(struct xe_runtime_pm *pm)
> +{
> + struct xe_device *xe = container_of(pm, struct xe_device, runtime_pm);
> +
> + xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe);
> + return true;
> +}
> +
LGTM but wondering if this and the next patch in the series should be
combined in order to have at least one use of this new definition.
Either way:
Reviewed-by: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@xxxxxxxxx>
Francois
> static inline void intel_runtime_pm_put_unchecked(struct xe_runtime_pm *pm)
> {
> struct xe_device *xe = container_of(pm, struct xe_device, runtime_pm);
> --
> 2.44.0
>
