Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/4] drm/i915: rename debugfs_gt_pm files

["Yokoyama, Caz" <caz.yokoyama@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2021-09-10 at 14:52 -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:14:37PM +0000, Yokoyama, Caz wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-09-10 at 10:52 -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 05:49:40PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > We shouldn't be using debugfs_ namespace for this
> > > > functionality.
> > > > Rename
> > > > debugfs_gt_pm.[ch] to intel_gt_pm_debugfs.[ch] and then make
> > > > functions, defines and structs follow suit.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile                      |  2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/debugfs_gt_pm.h            | 14 -----
> > > > ----
> > > > -----
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_debugfs.c         |  4 ++--
> > > > .../gt/{debugfs_gt_pm.c => intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c}  |  4 ++--
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.h      | 14
> > > > ++++++++++++++
> > > > 5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > > > delete mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/debugfs_gt_pm.h
> > > > rename drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/{debugfs_gt_pm.c =>
> > > > intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c} (99%)
> > > > create mode 100644
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.h
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile
> > > > index 232c9673a2e5..dd656f2d7721 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile
> > > > @@ -79,7 +79,6 @@ i915-$(CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS) += i915_pmu.o
> > > > 
> > > > # "Graphics Technology" (aka we talk to the gpu)
> > > > gt-y += \
> > > > -	gt/debugfs_gt_pm.o \
> > > > 	gt/gen2_engine_cs.o \
> > > > 	gt/gen6_engine_cs.o \
> > > > 	gt/gen6_ppgtt.o \
> > > > @@ -103,6 +102,7 @@ gt-y += \
> > > > 	gt/intel_gt_engines_debugfs.o \
> > > > 	gt/intel_gt_irq.o \
> > > > 	gt/intel_gt_pm.o \
> > > > +	gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.o \
> > > > 	gt/intel_gt_pm_irq.o \
> > > > 	gt/intel_gt_requests.o \
> > > > 	gt/intel_gtt.o \
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/debugfs_gt_pm.h
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/debugfs_gt_pm.h
> > > > deleted file mode 100644
> > > > index 4cf5f5c9da7d..000000000000
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/debugfs_gt_pm.h
> > > > +++ /dev/null
> > > > @@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
> > > > -/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
> > > > -/*
> > > > - * Copyright © 2019 Intel Corporation
> > > > - */
> > > > -
> > > > -#ifndef DEBUGFS_GT_PM_H
> > > > -#define DEBUGFS_GT_PM_H
> > > > -
> > > > -struct intel_gt;
> > > > -struct dentry;
> > > > -
> > > > -void debugfs_gt_pm_register(struct intel_gt *gt, struct dentry
> > > > *root);
> > > > -
> > > > -#endif /* DEBUGFS_GT_PM_H */
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_debugfs.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_debugfs.c
> > > > index e5d173c235a3..4096ee893b69 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_debugfs.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_debugfs.c
> > > > @@ -5,10 +5,10 @@
> > > > 
> > > > #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > > > 
> > > > -#include "debugfs_gt_pm.h"
> > > > #include "i915_drv.h"
> > > > #include "intel_gt_debugfs.h"
> > > > #include "intel_gt_engines_debugfs.h"
> > > > +#include "intel_gt_pm_debugfs.h"
> > Why locate here? Why not just replace debugfs_gt_pm.h? Compile
> > error?
> 
> are you asking why I moved the include? Because sorting them
> alphabetically avoid big messes in these includes
As the patch, it is easy to see if - and + lines are side by side.
Anyway, I honor and respect your decision.
-caz

> 
> Lucas De Marchi
> 
> > -caz
> > 
> > > > #include "intel_sseu_debugfs.h"
> > > > #include "uc/intel_uc_debugfs.h"
> > > > 
> > > > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ void intel_gt_register_debugfs(struct
> > > > intel_gt
> > > > *gt)
> > > > 		return;
> > > > 
> > > > 	intel_gt_engines_register_debugfs(gt, root);
> > > > -	debugfs_gt_pm_register(gt, root);
> > > > +	intel_gt_pm_register_debugfs(gt, root);
> > > 
> > > This is one case I usually don't know what convention to follow
> > > since
> > > it
> > > changes in different places.
> > > 
> > > I did it like xxxx_register_debugfs because of calls like
> > > intel_gt_init_scratch(), xxx_init_hw, etc. However here I see
> > > that
> > > just
> > > below we have intel_sseu_debugfs_register(), so maybe I should
> > > consider
> > > debugfs as part of the namespace?
> > > 
> > > Lucas De Marchi