Re: [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: Store gen_mask inside the static device info

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-02-12 09:58:20)
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2018, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Rather than deriving the gen_mask from the static intel_device_info->gen
> > at runtime, prefill it in the static data.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c |  2 --
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> >  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > index daa9060bdfcb..90f4adbbff28 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > @@ -902,8 +902,6 @@ static int i915_driver_init_early(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >       device_info->platform_mask = BIT(device_info->platform);
> >  
> >       BUG_ON(device_info->gen > sizeof(device_info->gen_mask) * BITS_PER_BYTE);
> > -     device_info->gen_mask = BIT(device_info->gen - 1);
> > -
> >       spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >       spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->gpu_error.lock);
> >       mutex_init(&dev_priv->backlight_lock);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > index 4e7a10c89782..3b4516d7f9a4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pci.c
> > @@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
> >  #include "i915_drv.h"
> >  #include "i915_selftest.h"
> >  
> > +#define GEN(x) .gen = (x), .gen_mask = BIT((x) - 1)
> 
> Please #undef GEN afterwards, ditto for the other macros in the other
> patches.

I was working on this being local to the file, but sure :)
 
> Does the compiler warn if you overflow .gen_mask? Can we drop the
> runtime overflow check now? Or better be safe than sorry with the
> BUG_ON?

I know clang emits a warn, and I've vague memories about gcc warning for
large constants. What I did contemplate is that given the macro, we
could use BUILD_BUG_ON_OR_ZERO() and incorporate the overflow checks
into the macro.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux