On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 11:34:14AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2026, Imre Deak <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 05:19:19PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 May 2026, Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 10:58:35AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> >> xe_display_flush_cleanup_work() is a bit of an oddball function in xe > >> >> display code. There shouldn't be anything this specific or xe > >> >> specific. While I'm not sure what the correct refactor for the function > >> >> should be, move it to shared display code for starters, next to the > >> >> eerily similar but slightly different intel_has_pending_fb_unpin() that > >> >> is only called from i915 core. > >> >> > >> >> The main goal here is to unblock some refactors on > >> >> for_each_intel_crtc(). > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > >> >> --- > >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c | 21 +++++++++++++++ > >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h | 1 + > >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c | 27 +++----------------- > >> >> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > >> >> > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >> >> index d5cf1476c7b9..50feca52b962 100644 > >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c > >> >> @@ -737,6 +737,27 @@ bool intel_has_pending_fb_unpin(struct > >> >> intel_display *display) > >> >> return false; > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> +void intel_display_flush_cleanup_work(struct intel_display *display) > >> >> +{ > >> >> + struct intel_crtc *crtc; > >> >> + > >> >> + for_each_intel_crtc(display->drm, crtc) { > >> >> + struct drm_crtc_commit *commit; > >> >> + > >> >> + spin_lock(&crtc->base.commit_lock); > >> >> + commit = > >> >> list_first_entry_or_null(&crtc->base.commit_list, > >> >> + struct > >> >> drm_crtc_commit, commit_entry); > >> >> + if (commit) > >> >> + drm_crtc_commit_get(commit); > >> >> + spin_unlock(&crtc->base.commit_lock); > >> >> + > >> >> + if (commit) { > >> >> + wait_for_completion(&commit->cleanup_done); > >> >> + drm_crtc_commit_put(commit); > >> >> + } > >> >> + } > >> >> +} > >> >> + > >> >> /* > >> >> * Finds the encoder associated with the given CRTC. This can only be > >> >> * used when we know that the CRTC isn't feeding multiple encoders! > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > >> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > >> >> index a43ada0c0502..65f8c81a7bae 100644 > >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.h > >> >> @@ -402,6 +402,7 @@ void intel_disable_transcoder(const struct > >> >> intel_crtc_state *old_crtc_state); > >> >> void i830_enable_pipe(struct intel_display *display, enum pipe pipe); > >> >> void i830_disable_pipe(struct intel_display *display, enum pipe pipe); > >> >> bool intel_has_pending_fb_unpin(struct intel_display *display); > >> >> +void intel_display_flush_cleanup_work(struct intel_display *display); > >> >> void intel_encoder_destroy(struct drm_encoder *encoder); > >> >> struct drm_display_mode * > >> >> intel_encoder_current_mode(struct intel_encoder *encoder); > >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > >> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > >> >> index aa73023b7398..ef27fdfdbab2 100644 > >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > >> >> @@ -258,27 +258,6 @@ static bool suspend_to_idle(void) > >> >> return false; > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> -static void xe_display_flush_cleanup_work(struct xe_device *xe) > >> >> -{ > >> >> - struct intel_crtc *crtc; > >> >> - > >> >> - for_each_intel_crtc(&xe->drm, crtc) { > >> >> - struct drm_crtc_commit *commit; > >> >> - > >> >> - spin_lock(&crtc->base.commit_lock); > >> >> - commit = > >> >> list_first_entry_or_null(&crtc->base.commit_list, > >> >> - struct > >> >> drm_crtc_commit, commit_entry); > >> >> - if (commit) > >> >> - drm_crtc_commit_get(commit); > >> >> - spin_unlock(&crtc->base.commit_lock); > >> >> - > >> >> - if (commit) { > >> >> - wait_for_completion(&commit->cleanup_done); > >> >> - drm_crtc_commit_put(commit); > >> >> - } > >> >> - } > >> >> -} > >> >> - > >> >> static void xe_display_enable_d3cold(struct xe_device *xe) > >> >> { > >> >> struct intel_display *display = xe->display; > >> >> @@ -292,7 +271,7 @@ static void xe_display_enable_d3cold(struct > >> >> xe_device *xe) > >> >> */ > >> >> intel_power_domains_disable(display); > >> >> > >> >> - xe_display_flush_cleanup_work(xe); > >> >> + intel_display_flush_cleanup_work(display); > >> >> > >> >> intel_opregion_suspend(display, PCI_D3cold); > >> >> > >> >> @@ -347,7 +326,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_suspend(struct xe_device *xe) > >> >> intel_display_driver_suspend(display); > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> - xe_display_flush_cleanup_work(xe); > >> >> + intel_display_flush_cleanup_work(display); > >> > > >> > intel_display_driver_suspend() already flushes the cleanup wq. So I > >> > think this is doing nothing. The correct answer seems to be to nuke > >> > the whole thing. We are missing the wq flush from the shutdown() path > >> > in i915 however, so I suppose we should add it there. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> intel_encoder_block_all_hpds(display); > >> >> > >> >> @@ -379,7 +358,7 @@ void xe_display_pm_shutdown(struct xe_device *xe) > >> >> intel_display_driver_suspend(display); > >> > > >> > This should rather be the same atomic helper shutdown that i915 uses. > >> > I guess what we want is a intel_display_driver_shutdown() to pair > >> > up with intel_display_driver_suspend(). > >> > >> Yeah, well, another "Hal fixes a light bulb" moment. I just wanted to > >> clean up the iterators, but I can't do that with xe having crtc > >> iteration, which it never should have had in the first place. > >> > >> I think all of the i915/xe/display probe/cleanup/suspend/resume paths > >> are a gigantic mess. It was a mess with just i915, and xe added another, > >> *different* mess. They both do things differently, but *neither* should > >> be calling low-level display stuff directly. > >> > >> I'll try to cook something up for this. > > > > Fwiw, this came up already earlier [1] and then I came up with > > https://github.com/ideak/linux/commits/suspend-shutdown-refactor > > > > but haven't followed up with it. For reference I rebased it now on > > drm-tip. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aIjizdet9ZUXB-yx@ideak-desk > > I've started on this, but I'm planning on taking a slightly different > route from what Imre has there. The direction is the same, move more of > this detailed stuff to display. > > But Imre also has a change similar to the patch at hand as the first > thing. > > And that's the thing. I feel like starting to fix this one in xe code > blocks the remainder of this series, and blocks the straighforward > refactors of the probe/remove/suspend/remove parts. IMO it's easier to > unify with all this code moved to display first. > > Ville, as I wrote in the commit message, can we just move this out of > the way to unblock further changes? It's a non-functional change, > doesn't make anything better or worse, apart from removing CRTC > iteration from xe code, and unblocks further work.
I guess. Maybe just toss in a FIXME to delete this later. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
