From: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/xe: Introduce force-wake guard class
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 15:53:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z0SBXaFHdbTLi2ia@black.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z0RpewnaZocMaBoX@intel.com>
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 07:11:39AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 09:26:42PM +0100, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> > On 19.11.2024 20:59, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 09:21:17PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 01:47:28PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> > >>> > There is support for 'classes' with constructor and destructor
> > >>> > semantics that can be used for any scope-based resource management,
> > >>> > like our domain force-wake management.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is, okay...
> > >>> It can be, okay...
> > >>>
> > >>> But why do we want?
> > >>> What are the advantages?
> > >>
> > >> Makes error cases easier to handle + less code.
> >
> > and this 'easier' is not just that as it also means that code is much
> > more robust as it's the compiler job to take care of all the cleanup,
> > which could be tricky when doing early exits from different paths, or
> > due to late updates to the code done by someone else
> >
> > >> We significantly cleaned up intel pinctrl and gpio drivers a few
> > >> months ago
> > >> and almost halved the footprint in some cases.
> > >
> > > I'm ok with using this pattern as I already expressed before.
> > > Particularly seeing other subsystems adopting it and being used well in
> > > the core kernel as well.
> > >
> > > Main ask here is to provide proper justification in the commit message.
> >
> > there was a little more in the cover letter:
> >
> > ""
> > This should allow us to use:
> >
> > CLASS(xe_fw, var)(fw, XE_FORCEWAKE_ALL);
> > or
> > guard(xe_fw)(fw, XE_FW_GT);
> > or
> > scoped_guard(xe_fw, fw, XE_FW_GT)
> > foo();
> >
> > without any concern of leaking the force-wake references.
> > ""
> >
> > do you want/need more?
>
> this block here also just say 'allow to use' but fail to describe
> why we should use. But the upper block started by Raav seems a good
> why. Just make sure that that is in the commit message and
>
> Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
with
Reviewed-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-25 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-18 18:45 [PATCH v2 0/2] New force-wake guard class Michal Wajdeczko
2024-11-18 18:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/xe: Introduce " Michal Wajdeczko
2024-11-19 18:47 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-11-19 19:21 ` Raag Jadav
2024-11-19 19:59 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-11-19 20:26 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-11-25 12:11 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-11-25 13:53 ` Raag Jadav [this message]
2024-11-18 18:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/xe: Use new force-wake guard class in xe_mocs.c Michal Wajdeczko
2024-11-19 20:03 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-11-19 21:05 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-11-21 4:55 ` Matthew Brost
2024-11-21 20:53 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-11-18 18:54 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for New force-wake guard class Patchwork
2024-11-18 18:55 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2024-11-18 18:57 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2024-11-18 19:20 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-11-18 19:23 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-11-18 19:24 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-11-19 1:57 ` ✗ CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
2024-11-19 7:29 ` ✓ CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z0SBXaFHdbTLi2ia@black.fi.intel.com \
--to=raag.jadav@intel.com \
--cc=himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox