Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/dp: Drop using intel_de_read_notrace()

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

On Wed, 30 Sep 2026, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2026, Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> I want to eliminate intel_de_read_notrace() to shrink the
>> intel_de.h API a bit. That should help with the cleaning out
>> the remaining uncore mess for xe vs. i915.
>>
>> Furthermore on xe intel_de_read_notrace() doesn't even do
>> what it says on the tin, and instead all register accesses
>> are traced anyway.
>>
>> Switch the last users of intel_de_read_notrace()
>> (intel_dp_aux_wait_done() and intel_dp_aux_xfer())
>> over to the normal intel_de_read().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c
>> index 3cb07b0a901c..cd361164ecb8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dp_aux.c
>> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ intel_dp_aux_wait_done(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>>  	if (intel_parent_irq_enabled(display)) {
>> -#define C (((status = intel_de_read_notrace(display, ch_ctl)) & DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY) == 0)
>> +#define C (((status = intel_de_read(display, ch_ctl)) & DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY) == 0)
>>  		done = wait_event_timeout(display->gmbus.wait_queue, C,
>>  					  msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(timeout_ms));
>>  
>> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ intel_dp_aux_xfer(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
>>  
>>  	/* Try to wait for any previous AUX channel activity */
>>  	for (try = 0; try < 3; try++) {
>> -		status = intel_de_read_notrace(display, ch_ctl);
>> +		status = intel_de_read(display, ch_ctl);
>>  		if ((status & DP_AUX_CH_CTL_SEND_BUSY) == 0)
>>  			break;
>>  		msleep(1);
>
> Sashiko has a point that there's now an extra trace call below this.
>
> With that fixed,
>
> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>

Oh, getting rid of the direct trace_i915_reg_rw() call here let's us get
rid of this too:

#include "intel_uncore_trace.h"


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel