On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 01:15:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Currently all of intel_pps.c passes struct intel_dp around. Do the same
> with pps_name() instead of passing both struct drm_i915_private and
> struct intel_pps.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c | 61 +++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c
> index 68141af4da54..1e87ce95c85d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.c
> @@ -24,9 +24,12 @@ static void vlv_steal_power_sequencer(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> static void pps_init_delays(struct intel_dp *intel_dp);
> static void pps_init_registers(struct intel_dp *intel_dp, bool
> force_disable_vdd);
>
> -static const char *pps_name(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> - struct intel_pps *pps)
> +static const char *pps_name(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> {
> + struct intel_display *display = to_intel_display(intel_dp);
> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(display->drm);
> + struct intel_pps *pps = &intel_dp->pps;
> +
I've been thinking that we'd eventually turn intel_pps into some kind of
proper object with a 1:1 relationship to the corresponding hw block.
This is sort of going in the opposite direction, but looks trivial
enough to deal with if/when we get to reworking intel_pps.
Series is
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
