On Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:31:36PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> @@ -146,7 +145,7 @@ void ilk_update_display_irq(struct intel_display >> *display, >> new_val |= (~enabled_irq_mask & interrupt_mask); >> >> if (new_val != display->irq.ilk_de_imr_mask && >> - !drm_WARN_ON(display->drm, !intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv))) { >> + !drm_WARN_ON(display->drm, >> !display->parent->irq->enabled(display->drm))) { > > Can't we keep intel_irqs_enabled()/etc. as wrapper functions instead of > open coding all that pointer chasing everywhere?
I opted for a compromise in v2, keeping the static wrappers inside intel_display_irq.c, the most common caller of the interface, and pointer chasing everywhere else. I'm still a bit undecided how to deal with this in general. Currently intel_display_rpm.c wraps the calls for rpm. But should we have dedicated file(s) for the wrappers, with uniform naming conventions for both the files and the wrappers? And do they *all* need a wrapper, even when there's just one caller? BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
