Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 2/6] drm/i915/pxp: Make intel_pxp_is_enabled implicitly sort PXP-owning-GT

["Teres Alexis, Alan Previn" <alan.previn.teres.alexis@intel.com>]

Not everything of course, but intel_feature_action(param1, ...) enforcing param1 to always be struct intel_feature_t i
assumed was what Rodrigo meant. And my intention wasn't to verify that rule but rather look for surrounding precedence
for any exceptions to it (i felt PXP was a candidate for an exception since its services and consumers are global but
its control-points are within the media tile alone).

Either way, this exception won't be required give the new design direction from Rodrigo based on that last reply to
patch #1. We will elevate pxp to be a global subsystem (despite the controls being gt specific).


...alan

On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 13:17 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, "Teres Alexis, Alan Previn" <alan.previn.teres.alexis@intel.com> wrote:
> > Respectfully and humbly, i would like to request where is the coding
> > guideline for function naming when u have 2nd level subsystem IPs
> > owning control over global hw features so that we dont need to have
> > this back and forth of conflicting direction from different reviewers
> > especially so long after initial reviews have started. (internally
> > reworking future MTL PXP series end up getting impacted here).
> 
> Do you seriously think we could pre-emptively codify everything in a
> coding guideline?
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center