On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 02:04:05PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > The calls to intel_display_driver_pm_resume() are preceded with similar > calls. Move the calls inside intel_display_driver_pm_resume(). > > In i915 the calls are interspersed among other things, so this is a > functional change. Fingers crossed. > > There's a slight functional change in that > intel_display_driver_pm_resume() returns early for > !HAS_DISPLAY(). Assume this is what we want, and there are no cases > where display engine is present but all pipes have been fused off. > > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c | 6 ++++++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c | 8 -------- > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c | 7 ------- > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c > index 1525ff7a1dc2..84807a9bff2b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_driver.c > @@ -831,6 +831,12 @@ void intel_display_driver_pm_resume(struct intel_display > *display) > if (!HAS_DISPLAY(display)) > return; > > + intel_dmc_resume(display); > + > + drm_mode_config_reset(display->drm); > + > + intel_display_driver_init_hw(display); > + > intel_display_driver_resume_access(display); > > intel_hpd_init(display); > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > index 7d0f98cbf5d9..6b9e1b268a89 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c > @@ -57,7 +57,6 @@ > #include "display/intel_display_device.h" > #include "display/intel_display_driver.h" > #include "display/intel_display_power.h" > -#include "display/intel_dmc.h" > #include "display/intel_dp.h" > #include "display/intel_dpt.h" > #include "display/intel_dram.h" > @@ -1233,8 +1232,6 @@ static int i915_drm_resume(struct drm_device *dev) > /* Must be called after GGTT is resumed. */ > intel_dpt_resume(display); > > - intel_dmc_resume(display); > - > i9xx_display_sr_restore(display); > > intel_gmbus_reset(display); > @@ -1255,13 +1252,8 @@ static int i915_drm_resume(struct drm_device *dev) > */ > intel_irq_resume(dev_priv); > > - if (intel_display_device_present(display)) > - drm_mode_config_reset(dev); > - > i915_gem_resume(dev_priv); > > - intel_display_driver_init_hw(display); > - > intel_clock_gating_init(&dev_priv->drm);
Apparently intel_display_driver_init_hw() is the init_clock_gating() for icl+, and it looks like we still haven't finished the actual init_clock_gating() display vs. gt split. Would have been nice to move all the display clock gating stuff in one go to the same place. But so far it looks like a clean split between icl+ vs. pre-icl (ie. no platforms that do both) so seems safe enough to move just one of them I guess. Can't immediately think of any weird dependencies here so Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > > intel_display_driver_pm_resume(display); > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > index 73891b36341b..b153bf9c83d8 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c > @@ -301,13 +301,6 @@ void xe_display_pm_resume(struct xe_device *xe) > if (!xe->info.probe_display) > return; > > - intel_dmc_resume(display); > - > - if (intel_display_device_present(display)) > - drm_mode_config_reset(&xe->drm); > - > - intel_display_driver_init_hw(display); > - > intel_display_driver_pm_resume(display); > } > > -- > 2.47.3 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
