On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 07:04:02PM +0100, Francois Dugast wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:10:12AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > The i915-display will start using the intel_runtime_pm_noresume.
> > So we need to add the compat header before it.
>
> Or "So we need to add it to the compat header before"?
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> > index fef969112b1d..ecaaef3df4bf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -176,6 +176,14 @@ static inline intel_wakeref_t
> > intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use(struct xe_runtime_p
> > return xe_pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(xe);
> > }
> >
> > +static inline intel_wakeref_t intel_runtime_pm_get_noresume(struct
> > xe_runtime_pm *pm)
> > +{
> > + struct xe_device *xe = container_of(pm, struct xe_device, runtime_pm);
> > +
> > + xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe);
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
>
> LGTM but wondering if this and the next patch in the series should be
> combined in order to have at least one use of this new definition.
I preferred to keep separate because they are in different drivers and
because the compilation doesn't break without the user here.
(I just double checked that).
>
> Either way:
> Reviewed-by: Francois Dugast <francois.dug...@intel.com>
>
> Francois
>
> > static inline void intel_runtime_pm_put_unchecked(struct xe_runtime_pm *pm)
> > {
> > struct xe_device *xe = container_of(pm, struct xe_device, runtime_pm);
> > --
> > 2.44.0
> >
