From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc: Karthik Poosa <karthik.poosa@intel.com>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>,
<badal.nilawar@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe_hwmon_process_reg
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:52:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZhWOV9puU8o3-qZM@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2rghstrxzerqq74k2papk3nwafptzsfzgli7ceyf4shstmejy6@n4efergznjwb>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:52:34PM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 06:31:26PM +0530, Karthik Poosa wrote:
> > Return u64 from xe_hwmon_process_reg, instead of a void return.
> > u64* input pointer not needed with this change.
> >
> > With this caller can directly assign return value to a variable without
> > need of explicit initialization and pass by reference.
> >
> > v2:
> > - Fix checkpatch warnings.
> >
> > v3:
> > - Rebase
> > - Removed unncessary break statements.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Karthik Poosa <karthik.poosa@intel.com>
> > Suggested-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> > Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
>
> Applied the other patches. This one I'm putting on hold to think about.
>
> I'm not sure the approach in that hwmon in general is good with the
> xe_hwmon_get_reg() + xe_hwmon_process_reg(). It seems it's even taking
> some pm refs when it doesn't need (to decide if attribute is visible).
I believe this approach is fine.
We do need to earlier get pm refs if we believe that there will be mmio
operations underneath. Better more then less in this case.
>
> Lucas De Marchi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-09 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-05 13:01 [PATCH v7 0/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe hwmon with couple of fixes Karthik Poosa
2024-04-05 13:01 ` [PATCH v7 1/4] drm/xe: Define xe_reg_is_valid Karthik Poosa
2024-04-05 13:01 ` [PATCH v7 2/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe_hwmon_get_reg to return struct xe_reg Karthik Poosa
2024-04-09 16:55 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-04-05 13:01 ` [PATCH v7 3/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe_hwmon_process_reg Karthik Poosa
2024-04-09 17:52 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-04-09 18:52 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2024-04-14 14:24 ` Poosa, Karthik
2024-04-18 13:14 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-04-24 8:16 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-04-24 11:40 ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-05-10 6:14 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-04-05 13:01 ` [PATCH v7 4/4] drm/xe/hwmon: Cast result to output precision on left shift of operand Karthik Poosa
2024-04-05 14:20 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/xe/hwmon: Update xe hwmon with couple of fixes (rev7) Patchwork
2024-04-05 14:20 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-04-05 14:21 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-04-05 14:32 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-04-05 14:35 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-04-05 14:36 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-04-05 14:57 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " 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=ZhWOV9puU8o3-qZM@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=karthik.poosa@intel.com \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@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