Message ID | 20190910143823.10686-5-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | Few loose end intel_gt cleanups | expand |
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-09-10 15:38:23) > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > > These notifications operate on intel_gt so make the code take what it > needs. > > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@intel.com> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Soon the blocking_notifier will be relieved of duty... I think it might be better if we pass gt to the notify_cb and have it extract its i915 from that, but my goal is to remove it, so it really doesn't matter! Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> -Chris
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c index a2e29bcc9671..2ccf8cacaa0a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ #include "intel_pm.h" #include "intel_wakeref.h" -static void pm_notify(struct drm_i915_private *i915, int state) +static void pm_notify(struct intel_gt *gt, int state) { - blocking_notifier_call_chain(&i915->gt.pm_notifications, state, i915); + blocking_notifier_call_chain(>->pm_notifications, state, gt->i915); } static int __gt_unpark(struct intel_wakeref *wf) @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static int __gt_unpark(struct intel_wakeref *wf) intel_gt_queue_hangcheck(gt); - pm_notify(i915, INTEL_GT_UNPARK); + pm_notify(gt, INTEL_GT_UNPARK); return 0; } @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int __gt_park(struct intel_wakeref *wf) GEM_TRACE("\n"); - pm_notify(i915, INTEL_GT_PARK); + pm_notify(gt, INTEL_GT_PARK); i915_pmu_gt_parked(i915); if (INTEL_GEN(i915) >= 6)