On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 10:05:19AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2018 21:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > This is the second version of the series trying to make GEN checks
> > more similar. These or roughly the changes from v1:
> >
> > - We don't have a single macro receiving 2 or 3 parameters. Now there
> > is GT_GEN_RANGE(), and GT_GEN(). The firs is the conversion from
> > IS_GEN() while the second is the conversion from IS_GEN<N>()
> > - Bring GEN_FOREVER back to be used with above macros
> > - Patch converting <, <=, ==, >, >= checks using INTEL_GEN() to
> > use the macros above was added
> > - INTEL_GEN() is removed to avoid it being used when we should prefer
> > the new macros
> >
> > The idea of the names is to pave the way for checks of the display version,
> > which would be named DISPLAY_GEN(), DISPLAY_GEN_RANGE().
> >
> > In the commit messages we have the scripts to regenerate the patch to make
> > it easier to apply after the discussions and also to be able to convert
> > inflight patches.
> >
> > Sorry in advance for the noise this causes in the codebase, but hopefully
> > it is for the greater good.
> >
> >
> > Lucas De Marchi (6):
> > Revert "drm/i915: Kill GEN_FOREVER"
> > drm/i915: replace IS_GEN<N> with GT_GEN(..., N)
> > drm/i915: rename IS_GEN9_* to GT_GEN9_*
> > drm/i915: replace gen checks using operators by GT_GEN/GT_GEN_RANGE
>
> I have reservations about this patch, where I think forcing only one flavour
> maybe is not the best thing. Because for plain if-ladder cases it feels more
> readable to stick with the current scheme of arithmetic comparisons. And it
> is more efficient in code as well.
>
> Range checks are on the other hand useful either when combined in the same
> conditional as some other bitmask based test, or when both ends of the
> comparison edge are bound.
So are you against changing the == to use the macros, changing the >=, >, <, <=,
or all of them?
Looking at the changes to ==, they seem very reasonable and in a few cases it allowed
the next patch to merge them in a GT_GEN_RANGE() -- yes the patch ordering was on
purpose to allow that.
The others are indeed debatable. However IMO for the cases it makes sense,
there's always the fallback
if (dev_priv->info.gen == 10)
...
else if (dev_priv->info.gen == 11)
...
else if (dev_priv->info.gen < 5)
...
We can go on a case by case manner in this patch rather than the mass conversion
for these.
>
> > drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
> > drm/i915: remove INTEL_GEN macro
>
> I have reservations about this as as well, especially considering the
> previous paragraph. But even on it's own I am not sure we want to go back to
> more verbose.
see above. IMO it's not actually so verbose as one would think.
if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) == 11)
vs
if (dev_priv->info.gen == 11)
The "verbose" version is actually one character less and one lookup less
to what the macro is doing underneath. Of course that means a lot of churn
to the codebase when/if we change where the gen number is located, but that
number is at the same place since its introduction in 2010
(commit c96c3a8cb7fadcb33d9a5ebe35fcee8b7d0a7946)
> Perhaps in the new scheme of things it should be renamed to INTEL_GT_GEN? I
> know it doesn't fit nicely with the naming scheme of GT/DISPLAY_GEN.. so
> maybe:
>
> GT_GEN -> IS_GT_GEN
> GT_GEN_RANGE -> IS_GT_GEN_RANGE
> INTEL_GEN -> GT_GEN (but churn!?)
I still think INTEL_GEN() is not bringing much clarity and forcing
the other macros to have the IS_ prefix.
>
> This leaves GT and DISPLAY namespaces completely parallel in syntax and
> semantics.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
>
>
> >
> > Rodrigo Vivi (1):
> > drm/i915: Rename IS_GEN to GT_RANGE
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/gtt.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/handlers.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/vgpu.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 145 +++++----
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 50 +--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 67 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 30 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 10 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c | 16 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 36 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_render_state.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c | 15 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_tiling.c | 12 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 62 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 120 +++----
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 14 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 6 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h | 8 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_suspend.c | 24 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_audio.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_bios.c | 12 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_cdclk.c | 28 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_color.c | 6 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_crt.c | 12 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ddi.c | 58 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c | 46 +--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 308 +++++++++---------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 82 ++---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp_mst.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c | 10 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 44 +--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 52 +--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fifo_underrun.c | 8 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_fw.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hangcheck.c | 6 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdcp.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hdmi.c | 18 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_i2c.c | 14 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 32 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lvds.c | 14 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c | 8 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c | 12 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_panel.c | 20 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pipe_crc.c | 12 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 196 +++++------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 26 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 68 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_runtime_pm.c | 32 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sdvo.c | 14 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 34 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_tv.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 60 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_wopcm.c | 8 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_workarounds.c | 20 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/huge_pages.c | 2 +-
> > .../drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_coherency.c | 4 +-
> > .../gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_context.c | 10 +-
> > .../gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_object.c | 12 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_request.c | 2 +-
> > .../gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_hangcheck.c | 8 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_uncore.c | 2 +-
> > .../drm/i915/selftests/intel_workarounds.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/vlv_dsi.c | 40 +--
> > 72 files changed, 1003 insertions(+), 1006 deletions(-)
> >
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
