Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/xe/display: separate d3cold handling from xe_display_pm_runtime_suspend_late()

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 03:40:47PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Make the special d3cold paths completely separate from the rest of the
> runtime pm calls.
> 
> The intel_dmc_wl_flush_release_work() call right after
> xe_display_pm_suspend_late() might be completely redundant, but this
> avoids any functional changes.
> 
> Wiggle the comment while at it. It gets duplicated for now, but this
> will be addressed in the follow-up.
> 
> v2: Update comments
> 
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
> index 493e9e09b6c9..bdafc010fae1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c
> @@ -389,14 +389,14 @@ void xe_display_pm_runtime_suspend_late(struct xe_device *xe)
>  	if (!xe->info.probe_display)
>  		return;
>  
> -	if (xe->d3cold.allowed)
> +	if (xe->d3cold.allowed) {
>  		xe_display_pm_suspend_late(xe);
> +		/* Ensure the wakelock release work gets flushed */
> +		intel_dmc_wl_flush_release_work(display);
> +		return;
> +	}
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * If xe_display_pm_suspend_late() is not called, it is likely
> -	 * that we will be on dynamic DC states with DMC wakelock enabled. We
> -	 * need to flush the release work in that case.
> -	 */
> +	/* Ensure the wakelock release work gets flushed */
>  	intel_dmc_wl_flush_release_work(display);

In the next patch you end up removing this entirely, so I'm wondering
why this patch simply doesn't remove this and move it to the d3cold only?!

I mean, I saw you replace that by the new runtime_ calls that does the
power_disable, but I don't see that calling the flush, so why simply not
remove now on this patch and make that next one only adding that runtime call
here?

But well, this patch itself is not wrong and it does what it tells and
you are transparently telling this is for ne follow up work. So,

Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>

>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.47.3
>