| Message ID | 20230403164615.131633-1-jose.souza@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/5] drm/i915: Split display locks init from i915_driver_early_probe() | expand |
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:46:11AM -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote: > No behavior changes here, just adding a function to make clear > what locks initialized here are display related or not. > > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > index 066d79c2069c4..224cb4cb43335 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > @@ -188,6 +188,20 @@ static void sanitize_gpu(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > } > } > > +static void > +i915_driver_display_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > +{ > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); > + > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); > +} > + hmmm... I like that, however Jani had indicated in another series [1] that he would prefer the wm mutex inside the wm code for instance... So, should we move all of these to their own components instead of this move? [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/115675/ I checked and for a few components it is simple to move them to their own init functions. However for a few we would need to create new init functions and call them here. Jani, more thoughts? > /** > * i915_driver_early_probe - setup state not requiring device access > * @dev_priv: device private > @@ -213,18 +227,11 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock); > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); > > mutex_init(&dev_priv->sb_lock); > cpu_latency_qos_add_request(&dev_priv->sb_qos, PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); > + i915_driver_display_early_probe(dev_priv); > > i915_memcpy_init_early(dev_priv); > intel_runtime_pm_init_early(&dev_priv->runtime_pm); > -- > 2.40.0 >
On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 13:03 -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:46:11AM -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote: > > No behavior changes here, just adding a function to make clear > > what locks initialized here are display related or not. > > > > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > > index 066d79c2069c4..224cb4cb43335 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > > @@ -188,6 +188,20 @@ static void sanitize_gpu(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > } > > } > > > > +static void > > +i915_driver_display_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > +{ > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); > > + > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); > > +} > > + > > hmmm... I like that, however Jani had indicated in another series [1] > that he would prefer the wm mutex inside the wm code for instance... > > So, should we move all of these to their own components instead of this > move? > > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/115675/ > > I checked and for a few components it is simple to move them to their > own init functions. However for a few we would need to create new init > functions and call them here. > > Jani, more thoughts? Forgot to CC you two in the new version: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116039/ display.wm.dsparb_lock is not used anywhere. Moved display.dkl.phy_lock, will leave the rest to someone to take over. > > > /** > > * i915_driver_early_probe - setup state not requiring device access > > * @dev_priv: device private > > @@ -213,18 +227,11 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > > > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock); > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); > > > > mutex_init(&dev_priv->sb_lock); > > cpu_latency_qos_add_request(&dev_priv->sb_qos, PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); > > > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); > > + i915_driver_display_early_probe(dev_priv); > > > > i915_memcpy_init_early(dev_priv); > > intel_runtime_pm_init_early(&dev_priv->runtime_pm); > > -- > > 2.40.0 > >
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 02:10:26PM -0400, Souza, Jose wrote: > On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 13:03 -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:46:11AM -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote: > > > No behavior changes here, just adding a function to make clear > > > what locks initialized here are display related or not. > > > > > > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > > > index 066d79c2069c4..224cb4cb43335 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > > > @@ -188,6 +188,20 @@ static void sanitize_gpu(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > +static void > > > +i915_driver_display_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > > +{ > > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); > > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); > > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); > > > + > > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); > > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); > > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); > > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); > > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); > > > +} > > > + > > > > hmmm... I like that, however Jani had indicated in another series [1] > > that he would prefer the wm mutex inside the wm code for instance... > > > > So, should we move all of these to their own components instead of this > > move? > > > > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/115675/ > > > > I checked and for a few components it is simple to move them to their > > own init functions. However for a few we would need to create new init > > functions and call them here. > > > > Jani, more thoughts? > > Forgot to CC you two in the new version: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116039/ > > display.wm.dsparb_lock is not used anywhere. it currently doesn't exist on drm-intel. Not sure how it appeared in drm-xe... Probably a !fixup needed on initial display patches. Please notice that my series on the link I sent earlier re-introduce it with a proper usage. Ville had already reviewed the code, but I hold the push because Jani asked about a better placement. What I tried to say earlier here is that this patch is probably not following Jani's vision on how to organize the initialization of these many locks. > Moved display.dkl.phy_lock, will leave the rest to someone to take over. > > > > > > > /** > > > * i915_driver_early_probe - setup state not requiring device access > > > * @dev_priv: device private > > > @@ -213,18 +227,11 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > > > > > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock); > > > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock); > > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); > > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); > > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); > > > > > > mutex_init(&dev_priv->sb_lock); > > > cpu_latency_qos_add_request(&dev_priv->sb_qos, PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); > > > > > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); > > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); > > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); > > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); > > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); > > > + i915_driver_display_early_probe(dev_priv); > > > > > > i915_memcpy_init_early(dev_priv); > > > intel_runtime_pm_init_early(&dev_priv->runtime_pm); > > > -- > > > 2.40.0 > > > >
On Mon, 03 Apr 2023, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 02:10:26PM -0400, Souza, Jose wrote: >> On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 13:03 -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 09:46:11AM -0700, José Roberto de Souza wrote: >> > > No behavior changes here, just adding a function to make clear >> > > what locks initialized here are display related or not. >> > > >> > > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >> > > Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com> >> > > --- >> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- >> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >> > > index 066d79c2069c4..224cb4cb43335 100644 >> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c >> > > @@ -188,6 +188,20 @@ static void sanitize_gpu(struct drm_i915_private *i915) >> > > } >> > > } >> > > >> > > +static void >> > > +i915_driver_display_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >> > > +{ >> > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); >> > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); >> > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); >> > > + >> > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); >> > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); >> > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); >> > > + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); >> > > + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); >> > > +} >> > > + >> > >> > hmmm... I like that, however Jani had indicated in another series [1] >> > that he would prefer the wm mutex inside the wm code for instance... >> > >> > So, should we move all of these to their own components instead of this >> > move? >> > >> > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/115675/ >> > >> > I checked and for a few components it is simple to move them to their >> > own init functions. However for a few we would need to create new init >> > functions and call them here. >> > >> > Jani, more thoughts? >> >> Forgot to CC you two in the new version: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116039/ >> >> display.wm.dsparb_lock is not used anywhere. > > it currently doesn't exist on drm-intel. Not sure how it appeared in drm-xe... > Probably a !fixup needed on initial display patches. > > Please notice that my series on the link I sent earlier re-introduce it with a proper > usage. Ville had already reviewed the code, but I hold the push because Jani > asked about a better placement. > > What I tried to say earlier here is that this patch is probably not following > Jani's vision on how to organize the initialization of these many > locks. That's right. Audio init should initialize audio.mutex. Watermark init should initialize wm.wm_mutex. PPS init should initialize pps.mutex. Etc. Moreover, display.audio should only be accessed by intel_audio.c. Etc. BR, Jani. > >> Moved display.dkl.phy_lock, will leave the rest to someone to take over. >> >> >> > >> > > /** >> > > * i915_driver_early_probe - setup state not requiring device access >> > > * @dev_priv: device private >> > > @@ -213,18 +227,11 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) >> > > >> > > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock); >> > > spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock); >> > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); >> > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); >> > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); >> > > >> > > mutex_init(&dev_priv->sb_lock); >> > > cpu_latency_qos_add_request(&dev_priv->sb_qos, PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); >> > > >> > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); >> > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); >> > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); >> > > - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); >> > > - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); >> > > + i915_driver_display_early_probe(dev_priv); >> > > >> > > i915_memcpy_init_early(dev_priv); >> > > intel_runtime_pm_init_early(&dev_priv->runtime_pm); >> > > -- >> > > 2.40.0 >> > > >>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c index 066d79c2069c4..224cb4cb43335 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c @@ -188,6 +188,20 @@ static void sanitize_gpu(struct drm_i915_private *i915) } } +static void +i915_driver_display_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) +{ + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); + + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); + mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); + spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); +} + /** * i915_driver_early_probe - setup state not requiring device access * @dev_priv: device private @@ -213,18 +227,11 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock); spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock); - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.fb_tracking.lock); - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock); - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.backlight.lock); mutex_init(&dev_priv->sb_lock); cpu_latency_qos_add_request(&dev_priv->sb_qos, PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE); - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.audio.mutex); - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.wm_mutex); - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex); - mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex); - spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock); + i915_driver_display_early_probe(dev_priv); i915_memcpy_init_early(dev_priv); intel_runtime_pm_init_early(&dev_priv->runtime_pm);
No behavior changes here, just adding a function to make clear what locks initialized here are display related or not. Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)