> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 7:57 PM
> To: Kandpal, Suraj <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Syrjala, Ville <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxx>;
> Nautiyal, Ankit K <ankit.k.nautiyal@xxxxxxxxx>; Shankar, Uma
> <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Kahola, Mika <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using shared dpll
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:18:31AM +0000, Kandpal, Suraj wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 9:00 PM
> > > To: Kandpal, Suraj <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > > intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > Syrjala, Ville <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Nautiyal, Ankit K <ankit.k.nautiyal@xxxxxxxxx>; Shankar, Uma
> > > <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Kahola, Mika <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using
> > > shared dpll
> > >
> > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, "Kandpal, Suraj" <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Kandpal, Suraj
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:25 PM
> > > >> To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > >> intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> Cc: Nautiyal, Ankit K <ankit.k.nautiyal@xxxxxxxxx>; Shankar, Uma
> > > >> <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Kahola, Mika <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using
> > > >> shared dpll
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:17 PM
> > > >> > To: Kandpal, Suraj <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > > >> > intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > Cc: Nautiyal, Ankit K <ankit.k.nautiyal@xxxxxxxxx>; Shankar,
> > > >> > Uma <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx>; Kahola, Mika
> > > >> > <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>; Kandpal, Suraj
> > > >> > <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using
> > > >> > shared dpll
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > > Rename functions to move away from using shared dpll in the
> > > >> > > dpll framework as much as possible since dpll may not always be
> shared.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h
> > > >> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h
> > > >> > > index 6edd103eda55..ef66aca5da1d 100644
> > > >> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h
> > > >> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h
> > > >> > > @@ -387,24 +387,24 @@ struct intel_global_dpll { #define
> > > >> > > SKL_DPLL2
> > > >> > > 2 #define SKL_DPLL3 3
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -/* shared dpll functions */
> > > >> > > +/* global dpll functions */
> > > >> > > struct intel_global_dpll *
> > > >> > > -intel_get_shared_dpll_by_id(struct intel_display *display,
> > > >> > > +intel_get_global_dpll_by_id(struct intel_display *display,
> > > >> > > enum intel_dpll_id id); -void
> > > >> > > assert_shared_dpll(struct intel_display *display,
> > > >> > > +void assert_global_dpll(struct intel_display *display,
> > > >> > > struct intel_global_dpll *pll,
> > > >> > > bool state);
> > > >> > > -#define assert_shared_dpll_enabled(d, p)
> > > >> > > assert_shared_dpll(d, p,
> > > >> > > true) -#define assert_shared_dpll_disabled(d, p)
> > > >> > > assert_shared_dpll(d, p, false) -int
> > > >> > > intel_compute_shared_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > >> > > +#define assert_global_dpll_enabled(d, p)
> > > >> > > +assert_global_dpll(d, p,
> > > >> > > +true) #define assert_global_dpll_disabled(d, p)
> > > >> > > +assert_global_dpll(d, p, false) int
> > > >> > > +intel_compute_global_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > >> > > struct intel_encoder *encoder); -int
> > > >> > > intel_reserve_shared_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > >> > > +int intel_reserve_global_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state
> > > >> > > +*state,
> > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > >> > > struct intel_encoder *encoder); -void
> > > >> > > intel_release_shared_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > >> > > +void intel_release_global_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state
> > > >> > > +*state,
> > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc); -void
> > > >> > > intel_unreference_shared_dpll_crtc(const struct intel_crtc
> > > >> > > *crtc,
> > > >> > > +void intel_unreference_global_dpll_crtc(const struct
> > > >> > > +intel_crtc *crtc,
> > > >> > > const struct intel_global_dpll
> *pll,
> > > >> > > struct intel_dpll_state
> > > >> > *shared_dpll_state); void
> > > >> > > icl_set_active_port_dpll(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
> > > >> > > @@
> > > >> > > -418,10 +418,10 @@ int intel_dpll_get_freq(struct
> > > >> > > intel_display *display, bool intel_dpll_get_hw_state(struct
> intel_display *display,
> > > >> > > struct intel_global_dpll *pll,
> > > >> > > struct intel_dpll_hw_state *dpll_hw_state);
> -void
> > > >> > > intel_enable_shared_dpll(const struct intel_crtc_state
> > > >> > > *crtc_state); -void intel_disable_shared_dpll(const struct
> > > >> > > intel_crtc_state *crtc_state); -void
> > > >> > > intel_shared_dpll_swap_state(struct
> > > >> > > intel_atomic_state *state); -void
> > > >> > > intel_shared_dpll_init(struct intel_display *display);
> > > >> > > +void intel_enable_global_dpll(const struct intel_crtc_state
> > > >> > > +*crtc_state); void intel_disable_global_dpll(const struct
> > > >> > > +intel_crtc_state *crtc_state); void
> > > >> > > +intel_dpll_swap_state(struct intel_atomic_state *state);
> > > >> > > +void intel_global_dpll_init(struct intel_display *display);
> > > >> > > void intel_dpll_update_ref_clks(struct intel_display
> > > >> > > *display); void intel_dpll_readout_hw_state(struct
> > > >> > > intel_display *display); void
> > > >> > > intel_dpll_sanitize_state(struct intel_display *display); @@
> > > >> > > -437,6
> > > >> > > +437,6 @@ bool intel_dpll_is_combophy(enum intel_dpll_id id);
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > void intel_dpll_state_verify(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc); -void
> > > >> > > intel_shared_dpll_verify_disabled(struct intel_atomic_state
> > > >> > > *state);
> > > >> > > +void intel_global_dpll_verify_disabled(struct
> > > >> > > +intel_atomic_state *state);
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > #endif /* _INTEL_DPLL_MGR_H_ */
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If you're renaming almost everything anyway, I'd appreciate
> > > >> > moving towards naming functions according to the file name,
> > > >> > i.e. functions in intel_foo.[ch] would be named intel_foo_*().
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The dpll mgr is notoriously bad in this regard. I'm also open
> > > >> > to renaming the entire file, intel_dpll_mgr.[ch] isn't all that great.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm not sure if the term "global" (instead of "shared") was
> > > >> > very well justified in patch 3. Maybe all of these should be
> > > >> > thought out together for the
> > > >> naming.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree with the renaming I would have very much have to keep the
> > > >> naming simple something like Intel_dpll_func but that exits !
> > > >> intel_dpll_mgr_funcs but intel_dpll_mgr already has some hooks
> > > >> defined
> > > inside It.
> > > >> I chose global since that way we will be able to represent both
> > > >> PLL using shared PHY and PLL with individual PHY.
> > > >> Also renaming intel_dpll_mgr.[ch] we have a intel_dpll.[ch]
> > > >> making it a problem What if we renamed the file to
> > > >> intel_global_dpll.[ch]
> > > >
> > > > Jani what do you think of this ?
> > >
> > > I think Ville probably has opinions on this. Cc'd.
> >
> > Hi Ville,
> > Any thoughts ?
>
> IMO it should just be intel_dpll_*. We want all PLLs to provide the same
> uniform interface for enable/disble/readout/state_dump/etc.
> Whether the PLL is shared/global or not isn't interesting outside the actual
> modeset sequence and PLL selection logic.
But that still leaves us with the question what would be the most appropriate way to do away with the
Intel_shared_dpll_* naming what does it become if not intel_global_dpll_* (since intel_dpll wouldn't be a
Straightforward answer to this) intel_dpll_global ?
Can we rename the file to intel_dpll_global that way we can also have all the functions follow the naming convention
As Jani said to intel_filename_foo()?
Regards,
Suraj Kandpal
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
