-----Original Message-----
From: Intel-xe <intel-xe-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Rodrigo Vivi
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 1:35 PM
To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Deak, Imre <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>; Vivi, Rodrigo <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>; Maarten Lankhort <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH 05/31] drm/xe: At shutdown disable commit helpers instead of flushing
>
> This aligns with the current i915 display sequence.
>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhort <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
> index 5cbee5040e91..0237d458078b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>
> #include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> #include <drm/drm_managed.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_atomic_helper.h>
> #include <drm/drm_probe_helper.h>
> #include <uapi/drm/xe_drm.h>
>
> @@ -364,10 +365,10 @@ void xe_display_pm_shutdown(struct xe_device *xe)
> if (has_display(xe)) {
> drm_kms_helper_poll_disable(&xe->drm);
> intel_display_driver_disable_user_access(xe);
> - intel_display_driver_suspend(xe);
> +
> + drm_atomic_helper_shutdown(&xe->drm);
Isn't this functionally equivalent? The only difference AFAICT is that previously we
set the display.restore.modeset_state = state, where the state was the
return value for drm_atomic_helper_shutdown.
> }
>
> - xe_display_flush_cleanup_work(xe);
And I'm guessing we're removing this line because it's a duplicate in the new
execution path now?
I won't block on it.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cavitt <jonathan.cavitt@xxxxxxxxx>
-Jonathan Cavitt
> intel_dp_mst_suspend(xe);
> intel_hpd_cancel_work(xe);
>
> --
> 2.46.0
>
>
