On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:11:10PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:49:28AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > This was suggested by Chris on his review to the first version of > > "drm/i915: get power domain in case the BIOS enabled eDP VDD". Well, > > at least that's what I understood from his comment :) > > > > v2: - Make it intel_encoder_power_get/put > > - Don't call the new functions on functions where we need both > > get() and put(), so we don't end up calling > > intel_display_port_power_domain() more than needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 19 +++++-------------- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 ++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > I am not really sure if this patch is worth it... I certainly won't be mad if we > > drop it. The diffstat is not good. > > I'm not sure either. In fact I had this same idea already when I saw > Imre's power well patches for the first time, but then I thought that > it doesn't help that much and decided to keep the idea to myself. If you guys ask about my color choices I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of intel_display_port_power_domain. In roughly object-oriented code functions with giant switch statements which use the object class to decide what to do tend to be a red flag ... In case you care for a reference see the switch statement code smell in Martin Fowler's refactoring. But that was just my bikeshed, tbh I don't care strongly enough here. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
