On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:16:33PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2019-04-25 22:50:37) > > No functional change. But by making those bits together > > we will be able to convert many functions to pass > > intel_irq instead of i915_private or uncore. > > > > For gen8+ "gt_" prefix would be better than pm_ on them > > since these regs include more stuff then PM, but let's > > keep for legacy reasons. > > I still disagree with this direction and would like to get the > conflicting bug fixes reviewed first. Sorry, I missunderstood you then... I thought you were okay with intel_irq as long as we didn't move rps related irq to it. I still want to split de from gt irqs though, just started from the easy less risk place to start. About the bugs you mentioned you mean like this: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109831 ? or what else do you have in mind that I'm missing? Thanks, Rodrigo > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
