Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-15 09:57:45)
>
> 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.
I liken it to classic "top", even when we have graphical system
monitors, for a quick assay of what's running, top is unbeatable.
I think each tool has its use. There may be future refactoring to a
single tool with different interfaces, but for now it looks to be a nice
little demonstration vehicle with some practical value.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
