Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915/display: Runtime pm wrappers for display parent interface

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025, Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@intel.com> wrote:
> Implement runtime pm wrappers for i915 driver and add them into display
> parent interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 77 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> index b295326eb4331..f0f5feaf3ff2c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> @@ -739,7 +739,84 @@ static void i915_welcome_messages(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  			 "DRM_I915_DEBUG_RUNTIME_PM enabled\n");
>  }
>  
> +static struct intel_runtime_pm *drm_to_rpm(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(drm);
> +
> +	return &i915->runtime_pm;
> +}
> +
> +static struct ref_tracker *intel_rpm_get(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	return intel_runtime_pm_get(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static struct ref_tracker *intel_rpm_get_raw(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	return intel_runtime_pm_get_raw(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static struct ref_tracker *intel_rpm_get_if_in_use(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	return intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static struct ref_tracker *intel_rpm_get_noresume(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	return intel_runtime_pm_get_noresume(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_rpm_put(const struct drm_device *drm, struct ref_tracker *wakeref)
> +{
> +	intel_runtime_pm_put(drm_to_rpm(drm), wakeref);
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_rpm_put_raw(const struct drm_device *drm, struct ref_tracker *wakeref)
> +{
> +	intel_runtime_pm_put_raw(drm_to_rpm(drm), wakeref);
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_rpm_put_unchecked(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	intel_runtime_pm_put_unchecked(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static bool intel_rpm_suspended(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	return intel_runtime_pm_suspended(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_rpm_assert_held(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	assert_rpm_wakelock_held(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_rpm_assert_block(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	disable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_rpm_assert_unblock(const struct drm_device *drm)
> +{
> +	enable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(drm_to_rpm(drm));
> +}
> +
> +static struct intel_display_rpm rpm = {

const

> +	.get = intel_rpm_get,
> +	.get_raw = intel_rpm_get_raw,
> +	.get_if_in_use = intel_rpm_get_if_in_use,
> +	.get_noresume = intel_rpm_get_noresume,
> +	.put = intel_rpm_put,
> +	.put_raw = intel_rpm_put_raw,
> +	.put_unchecked = intel_rpm_put_unchecked,
> +	.suspended = intel_rpm_suspended,
> +	.assert_held = intel_rpm_assert_held,
> +	.assert_block = intel_rpm_assert_block,
> +	.assert_unblock = intel_rpm_assert_unblock
> +};

I think all of the above belong in intel_runtime_pm.c.

I do dislike having to declare the rpm variable and make it non-static,
but I think the isolation is still better that way. The name also needs
to be longer because of this.

If we keep them here, this file will grow to a ton of small snippets
like above as we add more interfaces. I think the compiler might be able
to be more clever if the above wrapper functions are in the same file as
the functions being wrapped.

BR,
Jani.

> +
>  static const struct intel_display_parent_interface parent = {
> +	.rpm = &rpm,
>  };
>  
>  const struct intel_display_parent_interface *i915_driver_parent_interface(void)

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel