On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 01:51:19PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >> Define GT_GEN() similarly to our GT_GEN_RANGE() and convert users of >> IS_GEN<N> to pss the gen as parameter. This prepares for the addition >> of display gen checks by renaming the IS_GENx() and using common code >> for all the n gens. >> >> The following spatch was used to convert the users of these macros: >> >> @@ >> expression e; >> @@ >> ( >> - IS_GEN2(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 2) >> | >> - IS_GEN3(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 3) >> | >> - IS_GEN4(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 4) >> | >> - IS_GEN5(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 5) >> | >> - IS_GEN6(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 6) >> | >> - IS_GEN7(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 7) >> | >> - IS_GEN8(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 8) >> | >> - IS_GEN9(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 9) >> | >> - IS_GEN10(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 10) >> | >> - IS_GEN11(e) >> + GT_GEN(e, 11) >> ) >> >> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> I think this is a contentious patch. I am not sure I agree with the change. Please hold off on merging until further discussion. Thanks, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
