On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:23:22PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:51:03PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > There are only three call sites remaining for > > intel_wait_for_vblank(). Remove the function, and open code it to avoid > > new users from showing up. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c | 2 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_crt.c | 2 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 8 ++++++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_types.h | 8 -------- > > 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c > > index 91c19e0a98d7..e3b863ee0bbb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_cdclk.c > > @@ -1690,7 +1690,7 @@ static void bxt_set_cdclk(struct drm_i915_private > > *dev_priv, > > intel_de_write(dev_priv, CDCLK_CTL, val); > > > > if (pipe != INVALID_PIPE) > > - intel_wait_for_vblank(dev_priv, pipe); > > + drm_crtc_wait_one_vblank(&intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv, > > pipe)->base); > > That looks rather hideuous. I think I'd prefer to keep the wrapper.
I guess if we had an intel_crtc based version of the vblank wait function it might not look so terrible. We could also s/intel_get_crtc_for_pipe/intel_crtc_for_pipe/ to make it a bit more succinct and look less like some refcounted thing. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
