On 02/08/2018 03:31 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Jackie Li (2018-02-08 23:03:54)
@@ -95,7 +97,11 @@ struct intel_guc_wopcm {
u32 offset;
u32 size;
u32 top;
- u32 valid;
+
+ /* GuC WOPCM flags below. */
+ u32 valid:1;
+ u32 hw_updated:1;
+ u32 need_load_huc_fw:1;
bool need_load_huc_fw:1; etc
@@ -147,6 +211,8 @@ int intel_guc_wopcm_init(struct intel_guc_wopcm *guc_wopcm, u32 guc_fw_size,
guc->wopcm.offset = offset;
guc->wopcm.size = size;
guc->wopcm.top = top;
+ /* Use GuC to load HuC firmware if HuC firmware is present. */
+ guc->wopcm.need_load_huc_fw = huc_fw_size ? 1 : 0;
Then the compiler will do the right thing with
guc->wopcm.need_load_huc_fw = huc_fw_size;
bools, use them ;)
Thanks Chris!
To be honest, I would still end up with *guc->wopcm.need_load_huc_fw =
huc_fw_size ? 1 : 0*
even if I had used bool for these flags.However, my main consideration
to use *u32* instead of
*bool* was to make it flexible to add to flags bits, e.g. easy to
append new flags/fields which
needs more than 1-bit (may be overthinking here). we sure can use
u8/16/32 for such new flags,
but it's a little bit odd to have something like:
bool flag1:1;
u8 flag2:2;
Plus, the mysterious bool size was another reason I was reluctant to use
bool in struct (even through
I always got size = 1 byte for a bool type :-[).
Appreciate for more insights on the use of bool.
Regards,
-Jackie
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
