On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:00:54AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I saw some mention somewhere on IS_GEN_RANGE, which looked clearer than > > IS_GEN(dev_priv, s, e). Presumably that did not go anywhere since now > > the proposal is the above? I have to say I am not sure it reads > > completely intuitive when seen near in code: > > > > IS_GEN(dev_priv, 9) > > IS_GEN(dev_priv, 8, 9) > > > > Looks like a variable arg list and the difference in semantics does not > > come through. As such I am leaning towards thinking it is too much churn > > for unclear benefit. Or in other words I thought IS_GEN_RANGE was a > > better direction. > > Okay, thanks for the feedback. I'm not locked into any resolution yet, > apart from not churning anything until we have a better picture where > we're going. I believe we have 2 orthogonal discussions here where they shouldn't block each other. 1. The addition of DISPLAY_GEN checks to group platforms and prefer display gen checks over platform codenames. By doing this all platform enabling work for next platforms gets easier and less bureaucratic. 2. consolidated IS_GEN macro vs GEN_RANGE vs leave the way it currently is. > > BR, > Jani. > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
