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 42241C282CD for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF5710E2CD; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:51:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="RnS64gcp"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5048310E148; Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:51:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1741006297; x=1772542297; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=ACYWUkKVdr+jQ99qBCqGaDoLzPyYHCri4EQNkGHjGbo=; b=RnS64gcpI988rK/yVaKNH27BQ0NA7xuVPMZ3fbh+y1iJ4/k6PJPt1v9Z SWSg82Un6Hv2hA5HYWiFQJT7N2rYkpKndT9f/a9MzehguiVQWBPd+hWYw ITLHiMIyWTTyPDyBvZJsXzjpnMeeFphVBjWolXOOANneY1b3c1c6tnddy cJsvmtbvdj74P5wMGRz/VXpzniQ7rG8hy9WjgyZKzEvAJE/dP3A8LjSk3 9lqdaibAexWxfdInwv6pu+kIO52aKWt1iFJBQMTjPZ1ZBo+bxya/RPcZH 3B0ezl/o5+IfhOC+zGUVtFK3Vsi0acsxPez8RI+NCiEdrxwNGpIS3srSB w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: E4Ar0f+UQPKcNhxbHjBF7g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: nyiaXKONS4iEmL4DzeZCyw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11362"; a="41732725" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,329,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="41732725" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Mar 2025 04:51:36 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: ZP2pH8OgQbaStSDK1/EThg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: bcpf99q7RsehuEPDwD3pSA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,224,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="123215682" Received: from stinkpipe.fi.intel.com (HELO stinkbox) ([10.237.72.74]) by orviesa005.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 03 Mar 2025 04:51:33 -0800 Received: by stinkbox (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 03 Mar 2025 14:51:32 +0200 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 14:51:32 +0200 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: "Kandpal, Suraj" Cc: Jani Nikula , "intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" , "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" , "Syrjala, Ville" , "Nautiyal, Ankit K" , "Shankar, Uma" , "Kahola, Mika" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using shared dpll Message-ID: References: <20250225080927.157437-1-suraj.kandpal@intel.com> <20250225080927.157437-6-suraj.kandpal@intel.com> <8734g276o6.fsf@intel.com> <87ldtu59fb.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: X-Patchwork-Hint: comment X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 03:31:39PM +0000, Kandpal, Suraj wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ville Syrjälä > > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 7:57 PM > > To: Kandpal, Suraj > > Cc: Jani Nikula ; intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org; > > intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Syrjala, Ville ; > > Nautiyal, Ankit K ; Shankar, Uma > > ; Kahola, Mika > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using shared dpll > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:18:31AM +0000, Kandpal, Suraj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jani Nikula > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 9:00 PM > > > > To: Kandpal, Suraj ; > > > > intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; > > > > Syrjala, Ville > > > > Cc: Nautiyal, Ankit K ; Shankar, Uma > > > > ; Kahola, Mika > > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using > > > > shared dpll > > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, "Kandpal, Suraj" wrote: > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Kandpal, Suraj > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:25 PM > > > > >> To: Jani Nikula ; > > > > >> intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > >> Cc: Nautiyal, Ankit K ; Shankar, Uma > > > > >> ; Kahola, Mika > > > > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using > > > > >> shared dpll > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > > > >> > From: Jani Nikula > > > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 2:17 PM > > > > >> > To: Kandpal, Suraj ; > > > > >> > intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > >> > Cc: Nautiyal, Ankit K ; Shankar, > > > > >> > Uma ; Kahola, Mika > > > > >> > ; Kandpal, Suraj > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drm/i915/dpll: Move away from using > > > > >> > shared dpll > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Suraj Kandpal wrote: > > > > >> > > Rename functions to move away from using shared dpll in the > > > > >> > > dpll framework as much as possible since dpll may not always be > > shared. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Suraj Kandpal > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ... > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h > > > > >> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h > > > > >> > > index 6edd103eda55..ef66aca5da1d 100644 > > > > >> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h > > > > >> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.h > > > > >> > > @@ -387,24 +387,24 @@ struct intel_global_dpll { #define > > > > >> > > SKL_DPLL2 > > > > >> > > 2 #define SKL_DPLL3 3 > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > -/* shared dpll functions */ > > > > >> > > +/* global dpll functions */ > > > > >> > > struct intel_global_dpll * > > > > >> > > -intel_get_shared_dpll_by_id(struct intel_display *display, > > > > >> > > +intel_get_global_dpll_by_id(struct intel_display *display, > > > > >> > > enum intel_dpll_id id); -void > > > > >> > > assert_shared_dpll(struct intel_display *display, > > > > >> > > +void assert_global_dpll(struct intel_display *display, > > > > >> > > struct intel_global_dpll *pll, > > > > >> > > bool state); > > > > >> > > -#define assert_shared_dpll_enabled(d, p) > > > > >> > > assert_shared_dpll(d, p, > > > > >> > > true) -#define assert_shared_dpll_disabled(d, p) > > > > >> > > assert_shared_dpll(d, p, false) -int > > > > >> > > intel_compute_shared_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state, > > > > >> > > +#define assert_global_dpll_enabled(d, p) > > > > >> > > +assert_global_dpll(d, p, > > > > >> > > +true) #define assert_global_dpll_disabled(d, p) > > > > >> > > +assert_global_dpll(d, p, false) int > > > > >> > > +intel_compute_global_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state, > > > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc, > > > > >> > > struct intel_encoder *encoder); -int > > > > >> > > intel_reserve_shared_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state, > > > > >> > > +int intel_reserve_global_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state > > > > >> > > +*state, > > > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc, > > > > >> > > struct intel_encoder *encoder); -void > > > > >> > > intel_release_shared_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state *state, > > > > >> > > +void intel_release_global_dplls(struct intel_atomic_state > > > > >> > > +*state, > > > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc); -void > > > > >> > > intel_unreference_shared_dpll_crtc(const struct intel_crtc > > > > >> > > *crtc, > > > > >> > > +void intel_unreference_global_dpll_crtc(const struct > > > > >> > > +intel_crtc *crtc, > > > > >> > > const struct intel_global_dpll > > *pll, > > > > >> > > struct intel_dpll_state > > > > >> > *shared_dpll_state); void > > > > >> > > icl_set_active_port_dpll(struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, > > > > >> > > @@ > > > > >> > > -418,10 +418,10 @@ int intel_dpll_get_freq(struct > > > > >> > > intel_display *display, bool intel_dpll_get_hw_state(struct > > intel_display *display, > > > > >> > > struct intel_global_dpll *pll, > > > > >> > > struct intel_dpll_hw_state *dpll_hw_state); > > -void > > > > >> > > intel_enable_shared_dpll(const struct intel_crtc_state > > > > >> > > *crtc_state); -void intel_disable_shared_dpll(const struct > > > > >> > > intel_crtc_state *crtc_state); -void > > > > >> > > intel_shared_dpll_swap_state(struct > > > > >> > > intel_atomic_state *state); -void > > > > >> > > intel_shared_dpll_init(struct intel_display *display); > > > > >> > > +void intel_enable_global_dpll(const struct intel_crtc_state > > > > >> > > +*crtc_state); void intel_disable_global_dpll(const struct > > > > >> > > +intel_crtc_state *crtc_state); void > > > > >> > > +intel_dpll_swap_state(struct intel_atomic_state *state); > > > > >> > > +void intel_global_dpll_init(struct intel_display *display); > > > > >> > > void intel_dpll_update_ref_clks(struct intel_display > > > > >> > > *display); void intel_dpll_readout_hw_state(struct > > > > >> > > intel_display *display); void > > > > >> > > intel_dpll_sanitize_state(struct intel_display *display); @@ > > > > >> > > -437,6 > > > > >> > > +437,6 @@ bool intel_dpll_is_combophy(enum intel_dpll_id id); > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > void intel_dpll_state_verify(struct intel_atomic_state *state, > > > > >> > > struct intel_crtc *crtc); -void > > > > >> > > intel_shared_dpll_verify_disabled(struct intel_atomic_state > > > > >> > > *state); > > > > >> > > +void intel_global_dpll_verify_disabled(struct > > > > >> > > +intel_atomic_state *state); > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > #endif /* _INTEL_DPLL_MGR_H_ */ > > > > >> > > > > > >> > If you're renaming almost everything anyway, I'd appreciate > > > > >> > moving towards naming functions according to the file name, > > > > >> > i.e. functions in intel_foo.[ch] would be named intel_foo_*(). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The dpll mgr is notoriously bad in this regard. I'm also open > > > > >> > to renaming the entire file, intel_dpll_mgr.[ch] isn't all that great. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I'm not sure if the term "global" (instead of "shared") was > > > > >> > very well justified in patch 3. Maybe all of these should be > > > > >> > thought out together for the > > > > >> naming. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> I agree with the renaming I would have very much have to keep the > > > > >> naming simple something like Intel_dpll_func but that exits ! > > > > >> intel_dpll_mgr_funcs but intel_dpll_mgr already has some hooks > > > > >> defined > > > > inside It. > > > > >> I chose global since that way we will be able to represent both > > > > >> PLL using shared PHY and PLL with individual PHY. > > > > >> Also renaming intel_dpll_mgr.[ch] we have a intel_dpll.[ch] > > > > >> making it a problem What if we renamed the file to > > > > >> intel_global_dpll.[ch] > > > > > > > > > > Jani what do you think of this ? > > > > > > > > I think Ville probably has opinions on this. Cc'd. > > > > > > Hi Ville, > > > Any thoughts ? > > > > IMO it should just be intel_dpll_*. We want all PLLs to provide the same > > uniform interface for enable/disble/readout/state_dump/etc. > > Whether the PLL is shared/global or not isn't interesting outside the actual > > modeset sequence and PLL selection logic. > > But that still leaves us with the question what would be the most appropriate way to do away with the > Intel_shared_dpll_* naming what does it become if not intel_global_dpll_* (since intel_dpll wouldn't be a > Straightforward answer to this) intel_dpll_global ? What do you mean intel_dpll_* isn't a straightforward answer? It is the right answer. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel