All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@intel.com>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: move display funcs into a display struct.
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 21:14:40 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTesEIggFQ+5TULb@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tysQAgk5Buum5r4y1wYqt4JutmMP+1tn_tnD6ukFcT+NQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 07:52:17PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 18:15, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 9:45 PM Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 18:18, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 06 Sep 2021, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > From: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the first step in an idea to refactor the display code
> > > > > into a bit more of a corner.
> > > >
> > > > So, do we want to make i915->display a pointer?
> > > >
> > > > If we do, and we're about to touch every place accessing the display
> > > > struct, we might just as well have:
> > > >
> > > > struct drm_i915_private {
> > > >         struct drm_i915_display _display;
> > > >         struct drm_i915_display *display;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > and initialize i915->display = &i915->_display, and make all access
> > > > happen via the pointer. If we want to allocate it dynamically at some
> > > > point, it'll be a *much* easier task.
> > > >
> > > > But the first question to figure out is whether we want to do that or
> > > > not.
> > >
> > > I think the advantage is that we can hide a lot more structs from the
> > > main struct,
> > > the disadvantage is additional pointer chasing, esp for the drm_device and other
> > > i915_priv members.
> >
> > For display pointer chasing doesn't matter at all. Imo the case is
> > more what make sense as object hierarchy, and embedding vs pointer has
> > quite different meaning. We've discussed in the past that the split
> > into display/gem with branches seems to work ok-ish, but could
> > probably be improved a lot in code org. If we make display a lot more
> > a free-standing thing (i.e. pointer, not embedding) with a much more
> > clearer/cleaner api contract to other pieces, then maybe there's some
> > case to be made for all this churn.
> 
> I'd like to make it at least have some form of API between display and core/gt.
> 
> I think the main things I've noticed where it's kinda free for all at
> the moment are:
> - display funcs has pm internal funcs, display<->pm funcs, display
> only audio funcs,
> display only color funcs, other display internal funcs all mixed into
> one super struct.

I think the solution for these is mostly just more localized function
pointer structs/etc. Never been a fan of the old catch-all display
funcs thing. Pretty sure I even have eg. a cdclk_funcs struct sitting
in some branch somewhere.

> There's no split between things that provide service to display and vice-versa.
> I've started looking at splitting this.
> - tracepoints - i915_trace.h pulls in display and gt stuff, no idea if
> we can split that,
> but lots of things include i915_trace.h which means everyone sees
> everyone elses guts.

Yeah, I've been thinking of splitting this but haven't actually looked
into how feasible it is. The convoluted macro stuff makes it hard to
see how any of it really works, and in the past I did have some real
include order problems with it.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Finland Oy
Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki 
Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 
Domiciled in Helsinki 

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-07 18:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-06  3:43 [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 00/10] refactor display structs a little bit Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: move display funcs into a display struct Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  8:18   ` Jani Nikula
2021-09-06 19:44     ` Dave Airlie
2021-09-07  8:14       ` Daniel Vetter
2021-09-07  9:52         ` Dave Airlie
2021-09-07 18:14           ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2021-09-08  1:05             ` Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915/display: move cdclk info into display Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/10] drm/i915: move more pll/clocks into display struct Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/10] drm/i915/display: move gmbus " Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 05/10] drm/i915/display: move intel_dmc " Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/10] drm/i915/display: move mipi_mmio_base to " Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 07/10] drm/i915/display: move pps_mmio_base " Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/10] drm/i915/drrs: just use some local vars to simplify drrs code Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 09/10] drm/i915/display: move drrs into display struct Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 10/10] drm/i915/display: move fbc " Dave Airlie
2021-09-06  4:21 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for refactor display structs a little bit Patchwork
2021-09-06  4:51 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-09-06  6:07 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YTesEIggFQ+5TULb@intel.com \
    --to=ville.syrjala@intel.com \
    --cc=airlied@gmail.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.