On 31/12/2018 11:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
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.
I was also looking at intel_init_bsd_ring_buffer before in the series -
it ends up if gen >= 6, if !gen6, if gen6, if gen5, else, something like
that..
I think for now we apply -EDONTCARE here and someone comes back later if
it bugs them enough.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
