On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:38:40PM +0800, Chuanxiao Dong wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> index dd0e9d587..951540f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> @@ -377,24 +377,6 @@ static void execlists_submit_ports(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> writel(lower_32_bits(desc[0]), elsp);
> }
>
> -static bool ctx_single_port_submission(const struct i915_gem_context *ctx)
> -{
> - return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT) &&
> - i915_gem_context_force_single_submission(ctx));
> -}
> -
> -static bool can_merge_ctx(const struct i915_gem_context *prev,
> - const struct i915_gem_context *next)
> -{
> - if (prev != next)
> - return false;
> -
> - if (ctx_single_port_submission(prev))
> - return false;
> -
> - return true;
> -}
> -
> static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> {
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *last;
> @@ -462,7 +444,8 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> * request, and so we never need to tell the hardware about
> * the first.
> */
> - if (last && !can_merge_ctx(cursor->ctx, last->ctx)) {
> + if (last && ((last->ctx != cursor->ctx) ||
> + intel_gvt_context_single_port_submit(last->ctx))) {
Which is easier to understand the original code or the replacement?
Bonus points for sticking to coding style.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
