Am 27.11.2017 um 23:30 schrieb Tom St Denis: > On 27/11/17 04:28 PM, Christian König wrote: >> Am 27.11.2017 um 21:56 schrieb Alex Deucher: >>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Christian König >>> <christian.koenig at amd.com> wrote: >>>> Am 27.11.2017 um 21:01 schrieb Felix Kuehling: >>>>> On 2017-11-27 02:37 PM, Koenig, Christian wrote: >>>>>> And that is a clear NAK to this approach. >>>>> Hi Christian, >>>>> >>>>> Do you have other objections than the style issues? If so, please >>>>> explain. >>>> >>>> No, the technical aspect actually looks rather reasonable. >>>> >>>>> Please clarify, why this file needs to be treated differently from >>>>> other >>>>> files under include/asic_reg? All those files are auto-generated >>>>> by HW >>>>> teams. Fixing the coding style adds no value and makes future updates >>>>> more complicated. >>>> >>>> We already got complains about that and most likely will need to >>>> fix the >>>> rest as well. >>> I'd like to stay as close as possible to the headers formats we are >>> using internally across teams for consistency. >> >> To be honest I strongly disagree on that. The bad quality of the >> internal AMD headers is the reason we had to basically have the VMHUB >> code for Vega10 twice for example. > > At the very least the globals we use per ip block should be version > specific. That way if you cscope/ctags around you can find the actual > references and not collisions. Yeah, completely agree on that. Regards, Christian. > > Tom > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
