On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 10:44 AM Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 10:54:24AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 3:18 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 06:56:38PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > > Now the features defines have the right name, introduce a features > > > > bitfield and move the features defines in it, fixing all code checking > > > > for them. > > > > > > > > No functional changes intended. > > > > > > I think it might be better to squahs this patch into the previous one, > > > it would simplify checking that we use .quirks for ADRENO_QUIRK_foo and > > > .features for ADRENO_FEAT_bar. > > > > > > > IMHO better to keep this separated > > If they are separated, it is easy to overlook presense of a statement > checking .quirks against ADRENO_FEAT_bar. Maybe just drop this patch.. we don't really have so many quirks+features so a single bitmask is fine and avoids this wrong-bitmask-problem in the first place. BR, -R > > > > But we don't have _that_ many features/quirks so I don't find > > combining them all that problematic > > > > -- > With best wishes > Dmitry
