On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:13:53 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:03:30PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:12:59 +0200 > > Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > > Now that these are properly refactored this additional indirection > > > doesn't really buy us anything but confusion. Hence inline them. > > > > > > This duplicates the ironlake gt enable/disable code snippet, but we've > > > already separate ilk from gen6+ gt irq in i915_irq.c, so I think this > > > makes more sense. > > > > > > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> > > > > Bikeshed: > > While doing all this, I think put/get irq is really terribly named. I > > was a much bigger fan of the enable disable. > > Actually that can be combined with Chris' bikeshed to move the > ring->put|get_irg to dev_priv->core.ring_enable/disable_irq. But I've > figured that the same patch series should also move the forcewake function > pointers from dev_priv->display to dev_priv->core, so this is imo a > different patch series. Not quite, they are get/put functions, as we do have multiple waiters sharing the irq. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
