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 2FACFCCF9E3 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 07:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AFA10E4F8; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 07:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="O4oUGYnG"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.7]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B83810E4F5; Tue, 11 Nov 2025 07:39:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1762846760; x=1794382760; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Dz/71WuzknrAYPLrJArYMfAy5l8TTtBrOYXlp+0qQGo=; b=O4oUGYnGAKWI/R8Xng0E/q7zT+KvRyQXui4IOB4ORiAwPW+dsE57AP9l rXyX0HH90k9kjtIvsXsbVeQqbsQ2VlaYCYu2xOwsBzqRHRM3e1cPyr2o6 P323hnjI8+vu6HM6kTUY1w5KSjqqy49FarYU61NVXsvULcNvm0vP+0d9p bgTQlGkKXG7q7zxj9812uw0rwp7A/1OUqy1uv5VCYzD6OxLT9f4AyZqiy vRRm6w6p1xb9nCjhCKQV1IHghtdqimV9XpFgWDKlEZ+/scs2KubKjaN5e 5CK1whBDyKhmHH2ihShuHCLRjzOiJST+YRVXum8ZjHlezXAGuqYG4RRM3 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: v/vRGhgFSdqJoBRPvNNnoA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: MESU60dWTiiFHqeboyShrA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11609"; a="90374817" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,296,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="90374817" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by fmvoesa101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2025 23:39:19 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1z49sreIRnG/j4pGBsbIhw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: aFwt1QBOTvGSKd5UItaAGA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,296,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="188733594" Received: from mjarzebo-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.246.239]) by fmviesa006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2025 23:39:18 -0800 From: Jani Nikula To: Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] drm/{i915,xe}/display: move irq calls to parent interface In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <9196bbef7c56ae3f0cc06d96ba5caa7eedd21344.1762803004.git.jani.nikula@intel.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2025 09:39:15 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Ville Syrj=C3=A4l=C3=A4 wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:31:36PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> @@ -146,7 +145,7 @@ void ilk_update_display_irq(struct intel_display *di= splay, >> new_val |=3D (~enabled_irq_mask & interrupt_mask); >>=20=20 >> if (new_val !=3D display->irq.ilk_de_imr_mask && >> - !drm_WARN_ON(display->drm, !intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv))) { >> + !drm_WARN_ON(display->drm, !display->parent->irq->enabled(display-= >drm))) { > > Can't we keep intel_irqs_enabled()/etc. as wrapper functions instead of > open coding all that pointer chasing everywhere? I opted for a compromise in v2, keeping the static wrappers inside intel_display_irq.c, the most common caller of the interface, and pointer chasing everywhere else. I'm still a bit undecided how to deal with this in general. Currently intel_display_rpm.c wraps the calls for rpm. But should we have dedicated file(s) for the wrappers, with uniform naming conventions for both the files and the wrappers? And do they *all* need a wrapper, even when there's just one caller? BR, Jani. --=20 Jani Nikula, Intel