On 15/02/2018 09:10, Petri Latvala wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:52:05PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/.gitignore | 2 +-
tools/Makefile.sources | 2 +-
tools/{intel_gpu_top.c => intel_legacy_top.c} | 0
tools/meson.build | 2 +-
4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
rename tools/{intel_gpu_top.c => intel_legacy_top.c} (100%)
If the old tool is to be kept, the name intel_legacy_top doesn't quite
capture what it does. A more important topic though is whether it
should be kept at all. What are the features in the old tool that your
rewrite doesn't have?
It's a bit different in target audience and capabilities I think.
The current one exposes what OA is, I assume at least, able to provide
today in a safe way. The new tool doesn't do any of that but just
provides basic, more end-user friendly, engine busyness and related stats.
It may be that when considering gpu-top work, intel-gpu-top rewrite
hasn't even got a place. Or it might have as a minimal, easy to use and
simple tool. TBD.
On 15/02/2018 09:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Petri Latvala (2018-02-15 09:10:45)
>>
>> If the old tool is to be kept,
>
> No. The old tool should be removed as it is a machine killer.
And it is not up to date with current hardware so no complaints from me.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
