Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 05/10] drm/i915: Prepare for multiple gts

[Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Tvrtko,

> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > >    static int
> > > > >    intel_gt_tile_setup(struct intel_gt *gt, unsigned int id, phys_addr_t phys_addr)
> > > > 
> > > > we don't actually need 'id', it's gt->info.id. It's introduced in
> > > > patch 3 with the value '0' but it's not needed.
> > > 
> > > I have a suspicion code got munged up over endless rebases and refactors.
> > > 
> > > This patch is the one which introduces the id member to gt->info. But it is not setting it, even though I suspect the intent was for intel_gt_tile_setup to do that.
> > > 
> > > Instead gt->info.id is only set to a valid value in last patch of this series inside intel_gt_probe_all:
> > > 
> > > +		gt->i915 = i915;
> > > +		gt->name = gtdef->name;
> > > +		gt->type = gtdef->type;
> > > +		gt->info.engine_mask = gtdef->engine_mask;
> > > +		gt->info.id = i;
> > > +
> > > +		drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "Setting up %s %u\n", gt->name, gt->info.id);
> > > +		ret = intel_gt_tile_setup(gt, i, phys_addr + gtdef->mapping_base);
> > > 
> > > And intel_gt_tile_setup then calls __intel_gt_init_early which assigns gt->i915 yet again.
> > > 
> > > So I'd say there is probably space to bring this all into a more streamlined flow, even more than what you suggest below.
> > 
> > yes, I noticed them!
> > 
> > Patch 3, 5 and 10 are very much connected with each other: 3
> > prepares for one tile, 5 prepares for multitile and 10 does the
> > multitile. While in between other patches are doing other things.
> > 
> > On top of some cleanups we could also rearrange the patches with
> > some squashing and reordering to have them a bit more linear and
> > also easier to review.
> 
> Yes. Maybe make intel_gt_tile_setup accept more arguments so it can be truly
> used to setup a gt?
> 
>   intel_gt_tile_setup(gt, id, name, type, engine_mask)
> 
> The usual thing where patch which adds something extends the prototype to
> include more stuff. If that applies here.
> 
> I know it is originally my patch but I don't have the time to rework it,
> much less the whole series, so usual dispensation to take over authorship if
> changes are large applies.

as no one is stepping forward, if you and Matt are OK, I can try
to venture in some refactoring of these three patches (3, 5 and
10).

Andi