drm/i915: SAGV is not SKL-only, so rename a few things
The plan is to introduce intel_has_sagv() and then use it to discover
which platforms actually support it.
I thought about keeping the functions with their current skl names,
but found two problems: (i) skl_has_sagv() would become a very
confusing name, and (ii) intel_atomic_commit_tail() doesn't seem to be
calling any functions whose name start with a platform name, so the
"intel_" naming scheme seems make more sense than the "firstplatorm_"
naming scheme here.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Lyude <cpaul@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1474578035-424-2-git-send-email-paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
index a860c40..4e50d33 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
@@ -2889,12 +2889,12 @@
* - We're not using an interlaced display configuration
*/
int
-skl_enable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+intel_enable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
{
int ret;
- if (dev_priv->skl_sagv_status == I915_SKL_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED ||
- dev_priv->skl_sagv_status == I915_SKL_SAGV_ENABLED)
+ if (dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED ||
+ dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_ENABLED)
return 0;
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Enabling the SAGV\n");
@@ -2912,19 +2912,19 @@
*/
if (ret == -ENXIO) {
DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No SAGV found on system, ignoring\n");
- dev_priv->skl_sagv_status = I915_SKL_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
+ dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
return 0;
} else if (ret < 0) {
DRM_ERROR("Failed to enable the SAGV\n");
return ret;
}
- dev_priv->skl_sagv_status = I915_SKL_SAGV_ENABLED;
+ dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_ENABLED;
return 0;
}
static int
-skl_do_sagv_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+intel_do_sagv_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
{
int ret;
uint32_t temp = GEN9_SAGV_DISABLE;
@@ -2938,19 +2938,19 @@
}
int
-skl_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+intel_disable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
{
int ret, result;
- if (dev_priv->skl_sagv_status == I915_SKL_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED ||
- dev_priv->skl_sagv_status == I915_SKL_SAGV_DISABLED)
+ if (dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED ||
+ dev_priv->sagv_status == I915_SAGV_DISABLED)
return 0;
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Disabling the SAGV\n");
mutex_lock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
/* bspec says to keep retrying for at least 1 ms */
- ret = wait_for(result = skl_do_sagv_disable(dev_priv), 1);
+ ret = wait_for(result = intel_do_sagv_disable(dev_priv), 1);
mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT) {
@@ -2964,18 +2964,18 @@
*/
if (result == -ENXIO) {
DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("No SAGV found on system, ignoring\n");
- dev_priv->skl_sagv_status = I915_SKL_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
+ dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_NOT_CONTROLLED;
return 0;
} else if (result < 0) {
DRM_ERROR("Failed to disable the SAGV\n");
return result;
}
- dev_priv->skl_sagv_status = I915_SKL_SAGV_DISABLED;
+ dev_priv->sagv_status = I915_SAGV_DISABLED;
return 0;
}
-bool skl_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
+bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
{
struct drm_device *dev = state->dev;
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);