Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-11-13 17:33:38) > > On 13/11/2018 11:51, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-11-13 11:45:02) > >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Now that we are down to one caller, which does not even modify copied > >>> device info, we can remove the mkwrite_device_info helper and convert the > >>> device info pointer itself to be a pointer to static table instead of a > >>> copy. > >>> > >>> Only unfortnate thing is that we need to convert all callsites which were > >>> referencing the device info directly to using the INTEL_INFO helper. > >> > >> I'm not sure if that's all that bad. When I was toying around with > >> mkwrite_device_info removal, I actually started off with changing all > >> device info references to INTEL_INFO. It's a big patch, but it nicely > >> centralizes many of the other changes instead of splattering all over > >> the place. > > > > Fwiw, replacing all the static i915->info accesses with INTEL_INFO (or > > DEVICE_INFO since STATIC_INFO I think is too confusing with C, and > > INTEL_INFO is not distinct enough from RUNTIME_INFO) is perhaps a > > You propose DEVICE_INFO for the static part and RUNTIME_INFO for > dynamic, all with INTEL_ prefix? INTEL_DEVICE_INFO() INTEL_RUNTIME_INFO() is getting unwieldy? I just used DEVICE_INFO() and RUNTIME_INFO(). Although, there aren't that many direct users of INTEL_*_INFO() so I guess it's not that bad, and any that are, merit a shorter helper. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
