On Wed, 06 Sep 2017, "Vivi, Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 20:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-09-06 20:51:37) >> > Instead of limiting the range with this unusual GEN_RANGE >> > let's assume following platforms would use same scheme >> > unless stated otherwise. >> >> No. This is uabi that should indeed be checked before exposed and not >> assumed that unprivileged access to a register of yesterday is still >> safe tommorrow. > > hm... makes sense.. > > can we at least move to > > INTEL_GEN >= 4 && INTEL_GEN <= 10 > > or some flag on platform definition? > > I really don't like GEN_RANGE... Why? My only problem with it is that gen N does not map to bit N in the mask. I think it would be more important to optimize for developer brain reading the code than saving one bit. BR, Jani. > >> -Chris > -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
