Hi Russell 2016-01-19 11:21 GMT+01:00 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:09:57AM +0100, Christian Gmeiner wrote: >> Hi Russell, >> >> 2016-01-19 10:18 GMT+01:00 Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > + /* >> > + * For some cores, two varyings are consumed for position, so the >> > + * maximum varying count needs to be reduced by one. >> > + */ >> > + if ((gpu->identity.model == chipModel_GC2000 && >> > + gpu->identity.revision == 0x5108) || >> > + (gpu->identity.model == chipModel_GC880 && >> > + gpu->identity.revision == 0x5106)) >> > + gpu->identity.varyings_count -= 1; >> >> Should we not include the whole list of GPU cores with that special handling? >> See: https://github.com/Freescale/kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv/blob/master/kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv-src/hal/kernel/arch/gc_hal_kernel_hardware.c#L592 > > I was debating about that - but I think we need to come up with a better > way to do this sort of thing. At the very least, I've been wondering > whether a macro such as: > > #define etnaviv_model_rev(gpu, mod, rev) \ > ((gpu)->identity.model == chipModel_##mod && \ > (gpu)->identity.revision == rev)) > > would help make some of this code more readable. > Yep that makes the code more readable. > The other thing I've been wondering is whether a table looked up by GPU > model ID and/or revision ID quirks would simplify this. However, the > downside with the tabular approach is that it becomes harder to compare > what we have against the galcore sources. > The table driven approach could be a little heavy for the number of quirks we have currently. Maybe Lucas has an opinion about that? greets -- Christian Gmeiner, MSc https://soundcloud.com/christian-gmeiner _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
