On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:35:17 -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > >> Alternatively, all other uapi uses struct i915_engine_class_instance to > >> address engines which uses u16:u16. > >> > >> How ugly it is to stuff a struct into u32 flags is the question... But you > >> could at least use u16:u16 for consistency. Unless you wanted to leave some > >> bits free for the future? > > Originally when I wrote this I was wanting to leave space in case it was > > ever needed. I'm not particularly for or against keeping the space now. > > Yes, shrug... Neither I can't guess if we are ever likely to hit a problem > by having fewer bits for class:instance here compared to other uapi, or if > stuffing struct i915_engine_class_instance into flags would just be too > ugly. I mean there is option to define a new struct and not use flags at > all but that's probably to complicated for what it is. > > Anyone else with an opinion? Consistency or should be fine even like it is? Consistency. I'd prefer to stuff struct i915_engine_class_instance into flags, fwiw.
