Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-12-31 10:49:37)
>
> On 28/12/2018 17:16, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -2191,6 +2193,10 @@ static void intel_ring_default_vfuncs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >
> > engine->emit_breadcrumb = i9xx_emit_breadcrumb;
> > engine->emit_breadcrumb_sz = i9xx_emit_breadcrumb_sz;
> > + if (IS_GEN(dev_priv, 5)) {
> > + engine->emit_breadcrumb = gen5_emit_breadcrumb;
> > + engine->emit_breadcrumb_sz = gen5_emit_breadcrumb_sz;
>
> I'll only observe in passing that we lost some consistency in this
> approximate area of the code regarding when we are happy to overwrite
> the pointers, versus when we do if-ladders-or-so to avoid that.
I hear you, but my thinking was that this was the default for gen5 where
we use the same function for both classes of engine. And emit_bb_start
already looked odd there :) You do remember inconsistency is both my
middle names?
Back to tables? With semaphores gone, we've removed the runtime
conditionals, so we just have a bunch of common functions (for reset
handling). The counter point is that some subarches (gen2) only vary in
a single function pointer, so we end up with a lot of duplicate, but
const, tables.
I definitely prefer the repetition in tables when it comes to figuring
out exactly what set of functions are used together for any particular
setup.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
