Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/irq: Remove duplicated irq_enabled variable

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

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:
> Let's kill this legacy iand almost unused rq_enabled version
> in favor of the real one that is checked at
> intel_irqs_enabled().
>
> The commit 'ac1723c16b66 ("drm/i915: Track IRQ state
> in local device state")' shows that this was a legacy
> DRM level irq_enabled information that got removed.
>
> But the driver one already existed under a different
> name.
>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 --
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++------
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 39f6614a0a99..aa3000349116 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -343,8 +343,6 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
>  
>  	struct intel_pxp *pxp;
>  
> -	bool irq_enabled;
> -
>  	struct i915_pmu pmu;
>  
>  	/* The TTM device structure. */
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 2321de48d169..9f1a6f692dd1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -1406,14 +1406,12 @@ int intel_irq_install(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	 */
>  	dev_priv->runtime_pm.irqs_enabled = true;
>  
> -	dev_priv->irq_enabled = true;
> -
>  	intel_irq_reset(dev_priv);
>  
>  	ret = request_irq(irq, intel_irq_handler(dev_priv),
>  			  IRQF_SHARED, DRIVER_NAME, dev_priv);
>  	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_priv->irq_enabled = false;
> +		dev_priv->runtime_pm.irqs_enabled = false;
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -1439,11 +1437,9 @@ void intel_irq_uninstall(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>  	 * intel_display_driver_remove() calling us out of sequence.
>  	 * Would be nice if it didn't do that...
>  	 */
> -	if (!dev_priv->irq_enabled)
> +	if (!dev_priv->runtime_pm.irqs_enabled)

I think we should just stick a

	if (drm_WARN_ON(&dev_priv->drm, !dev_priv->runtime_pm.irqs_enabled))

here and remove the FIXME. I don't see a path like that anywhere,
anymore.

BR,
Jani.


>  		return;
>  
> -	dev_priv->irq_enabled = false;
> -
>  	intel_irq_reset(dev_priv);
>  
>  	free_irq(irq, dev_priv);

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel