From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1944C433EF for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4796E138; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CE7B6E138 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 12:13:22 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10178"; a="215529290" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,263,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="215529290" Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Nov 2021 04:13:13 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,263,1631602800"; d="scan'208";a="509765886" Received: from stinkbox.fi.intel.com (HELO stinkbox) ([10.237.72.171]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2021 04:13:10 -0800 Received: by stinkbox (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:13:10 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 14:13:09 +0200 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: Jani Nikula Message-ID: References: <20211124113652.22090-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> <20211124113652.22090-12-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> <87pmqplft3.fsf@intel.com> <87bl28lcyw.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87bl28lcyw.fsf@intel.com> X-Patchwork-Hint: comment Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/20] drm/i915/fbc: Move FBC debugfs stuff into intel_fbc.c X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Daniel Vetter , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:57:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 05:43:52PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021, Ville Syrjala wrote: > >> > From: Ville Syrjälä > >> > > >> > In order to encapsulate FBC harder let's just move the debugfs > >> > stuff into intel_fbc.c. > >> > >> Mmmh, I've kind of moved towards a split where i915_debugfs.c and > >> intel_display_debugfs.c have all the debugfs boilerplate, while the > >> implementation files have the guts with struct drm_i915_private *i915 > >> (or something more specific) and struct seq_file *m passed in. > >> > >> In some ways the split is arbitrary, but I kind of find the debugfs > >> boilerplate a distraction in the implementation files, and we also skip > >> building the debugfs files completely for CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=n. I don't > >> think I'd want to add #ifdefs on that spread around either. > > > > If we want to keep the debugfs in a separate file then we'll have to > > expose the guts of the FBC implementation in intel_fbc.h (or some other > > header) just for that, or we add a whole bunch of otherwise useless > > functions that pretend to provide some higher level of abstraction. > > > > Not really a fan of either of those options. > > Obviously I'm in favour of hiding the guts, no question about it. I'm > also very much in favour of moving the details out of our *debugfs.c > files. It's just a question of where to draw the line, and which side of > the line the debugfs boilerplate lands. > > Which leaves us either your approach in the patch at hand, or adding the > fbc helper functions for debugfs, which would be something like: > > intel_fbc_get_status > intel_fbc_get_false_color > intel_fbc_set_false_color So I guess you're suggesting that just the DEFINE_ATTRIBUTE and debugfs_create_file() stuff should remain in intel_display_debugfs.c? Not sure that approach has any benefits whatsoever. The get/set functions will need to be non-static and they'll get included in the binary whether or not debugfs is enabled or not (unless you lto it perhaps). If everything is in intel_fbc.c all that stuff just gets optimized out entirely when not needed. Also then I couldn't do this sort of stuff: if (fbc->funcs->set_false_color) debugfs_create_file(...) because that requires knowledge only available to intel_fbc.c. I'd need to add some kind of intel_fbc_has_false_color() thing just for that. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel