On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:55:28PM -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > 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 Hi Chris, could you please clarify what is missing to get a no functional change in? > > > -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 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
