Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-06-19 00:06:39)
>
>
> On 6/18/19 2:23 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >
> > On 17/06/2019 19:09, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> >> -static void intel_uncore_fw_domains_init(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> >> +static int intel_uncore_fw_domains_init(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> >> {
> >> struct drm_i915_private *i915 = uncore->i915;
> >> + int ret;
> >> GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_uncore_has_forcewake(uncore));
> >> +#define __fw_domain_init(id__, set__, ack__) \
> >> + ret = fw_domain_init(uncore, (id__), (set__), (ack__)); \
> >> + if (ret) \
> >> + goto out_clean;
> >
> > Hidden control flow is slightly objectionable but I don't offer any nice
> > alternatives so I guess will have to pass. Or maybe accumulate the error
> > (err |= fw_domain_init(..)) as you go and then cleanup at the end if any
> > failed?
>
> I'd prefer to avoid accumulating the error since it'd just cause us to
> having to unroll more domains when we could've stopped early.
>
> >
> > On the other hand the idea slightly conflicts with my other suggestion
> > to rename existing fw_domain_init to __fw_domain_init and call the macro
> > fw_domain_init and avoid all the churn below.
> >
>
> I'll pick this suggestion among the 2, unless there is another
> suggestion on how to avoid the hidden goto.
Be careful, or you'll give Tvrtko the chance to suggest table driven
setup. Maybe?
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
