From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
<ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/4] drm/i915: better high level abstraction for display
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:23:08 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zei0jIFP-IX5x8tR@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1709727127.git.jani.nikula@intel.com>
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 02:24:34PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> This is v2 of [1]. Improve the abstractions for display code.
>
> The main goals are:
>
> 1) The display code does not access struct drm_i915_private or struct
> xe_device. It only uses its own struct intel_display instead.
>
> 2) The i915 and xe driver cores do not access struct intel_display
> directly. It becomes an opaque pointer to them, stored in struct
> drm_i915_private and struct xe_device, and passed to display code.
>
> This will mean a lot of churn, unfortunately. But it will better
> separate the display code from the xe and i915 driver cores, and pave
> the way for a) removing -Ddrm_i915_private=xe_device from xe Makefile,
> and b) stop building the display code twice.
>
> What's presented here goes a long way, and could get us started.
I believe this series is a great start towards the separation goal
and I liked the approach.
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
for the series.
> But
> there are still opens, such as:
>
> 1) How to handle platform checks such as IS_TIGERLAKE().
perhaps we can use display_ver and make up random release version
table.
display.verion = 12
display.release = / 0->TIGERLAKE 1->ALDERLAKE, etc...
or just some specific display macros IS_TIGERLAKE_DISPLAY(display)
>
> 2) How to handle access to non-display members of i915/xe, such as
> i915->uncore.
Perhaps some driver registration callbacks with the mmio functions?
the worst part here will be
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c: __acquires(i915->uncore.lock)
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c: spin_lock(&i915->uncore.lock);
and for that perhaps we need some different lock? or a lock pointer along
with the mmio calback on a registration struct?
>
> There are other similar things, but I believe those are the most
> prevalent, and are the biggest blockers for converting a lot of
> functions over from i915 -> intel_display.
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1695747484.git.jani.nikula@intel.com
>
>
> Jani Nikula (4):
> drm/i915/display: ideas for further separating display code from the
> rest
> drm/i915/display: add generic to_intel_display() macro
> drm/i915/display: accept either i915 or display for feature tests
> drm/i915/display: test various to_intel_display() scenarios
>
> .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h | 3 ++
> .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c | 13 ++++++
> .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.h | 10 +++-
> .../drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp.c | 6 +--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c | 13 +++---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 11 ++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 15 +++++-
> 8 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.39.2
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-06 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-06 12:24 [RFC v2 0/4] drm/i915: better high level abstraction for display Jani Nikula
2024-03-06 12:24 ` [RFC v2 1/4] drm/i915/display: ideas for further separating display code from the rest Jani Nikula
2024-03-06 12:42 ` Jani Nikula
2024-03-06 12:24 ` [RFC v2 2/4] drm/i915/display: add generic to_intel_display() macro Jani Nikula
2024-03-06 18:16 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-03-07 11:28 ` Jani Nikula
2024-03-07 13:43 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-03-06 12:24 ` [RFC v2 3/4] drm/i915/display: accept either i915 or display for feature tests Jani Nikula
2024-03-06 12:24 ` [RFC v2 4/4] drm/i915/display: test various to_intel_display() scenarios Jani Nikula
2024-03-06 12:29 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/i915: better high level abstraction for display Patchwork
2024-03-06 12:29 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-03-06 12:30 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-03-06 12:41 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-03-06 12:41 ` ✗ CI.Hooks: failure " Patchwork
2024-03-06 12:43 ` ✗ CI.checksparse: warning " Patchwork
2024-03-06 13:11 ` ✓ CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2024-03-06 18:23 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2024-03-06 21:13 ` ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning " Patchwork
2024-03-06 21:14 ` ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2024-03-06 21:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2024-03-07 15:25 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Zei0jIFP-IX5x8tR@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.