On 10/06/2019 17:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-06-10 16:54:06)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Continuing the conversion and elimination of implicit dev_priv.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Suggested-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++-----------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.h | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 4 ++--
5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
index c0d986db5a75..a046e8dccc96 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
@@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ int intel_engines_init_mmio(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
RUNTIME_INFO(i915)->num_engines = hweight32(mask);
- i915_check_and_clear_faults(i915);
+ i915_check_and_clear_faults(&i915->uncore);
This name is still setting off red flags for me, but I have to confess
that staring at it, passing uncore does make sense.
Rename to intel_uncore_check_and_clear_faults?
Or move later in the series as intel_gt_check_and_clear_faults?
I just wish we have per-engines faults everywhere and this could be
reduced to passing engine.
Hmm, this I guess we will just have to revisit in the near future as we
may get the opportunity to put these regs under more scrutiny.
intel_setup_engine_capabilities(i915);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c
index 60d24110af80..13471916559b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_reset.c
@@ -1166,10 +1166,10 @@ static void gen8_clear_engine_error_register(struct
intel_engine_cs *engine)
GEN6_RING_FAULT_REG_POSTING_READ(engine);
}
-static void clear_error_registers(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
+static void clear_error_registers(struct intel_uncore *uncore,
intel_engine_mask_t engine_mask)
{
- struct intel_uncore *uncore = &i915->uncore;
+ struct drm_i915_private *i915 = uncore_to_i915(uncore);
Grr, I should have objected to uncore_to_i915() loudly from the
beginning
What's done is done,
Is it too late already? Shouldn't be. My thinking was the implementation
can easily be changed if/when backpointer is added (instead of
container_of). But if you would prefer we start without a helper, but
with a direct access to backpointer straight away that is fine by me.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
