From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: add cherryview specfic forcewake
 in execlists_elsp_write
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:51:16 +0100
Message-ID: <20140910155116.GD31074@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
References: <1410270256-26413-1-git-send-email-deepak.s@linux.intel.com>
 <20140908140243.GZ4193@intel.com> <20140908141423.GA4193@intel.com>
 <20140908144032.GC15520@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <540F278C.7070407@intel.com> <20140909142550.124035ff@jbarnes-t420>
 <20140910071645.GP15520@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20140910154739.GU15520@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from fireflyinternet.com (mail.fireflyinternet.com [87.106.93.118])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B8B6E44C
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140910154739.GU15520@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Deepak S <deepak.s@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 05:47:39PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Aside if someone gets bored and wants to apply some polish: And __ variant
> of force_wake_get/put which only asserts that the device isn't runtime
> suspended instead of doing the runtime_pm_get/put would be cute - we have
> one other user in the hsw/bdw rpm code already.
> 
> The current force_wake_get/put functions would then just wrap those raw
> versions.

I fail to see the reason why they take it at all. Conceptually,
gen6_gt_force_wake_get() is just as lowlevel as the register access they
wrap. The only one that breaks the rule is i915_debugfs.c and that seems
easy enough to wrap with its own intel_runtime_pm_get/_put.

And once you've finish with that you can then sort out the mess that is
the vlv variants. And now skl continues in the cut'n'paste'n'paste vein.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre