On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:26:53PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:14:33PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:44:06PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:39:25PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:45:00PM +0300, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > > > > Seems that only skl needs to have SAGV turned off
> > > > > for multipipe scenarios, so lets do it this way.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't afaics. It's just someone added the check for some random
> > > > reason. So this should be reworded a bit. Also this isn't just about
> > > > skl/derivatives but all pre-icl so the <subject> is a bit misleading too.
> > >
> > > This is in BSpec anyway. And it was in the code before, so I really
> > > don't get what do you mean here.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If anything blows up - we can always revert this patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 15 +++++++++------
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.h | 3 ++-
> > > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > > index 3dc1ad66beb3..db188efee21e 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > > @@ -3777,7 +3777,7 @@ void intel_sagv_pre_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > > > > if (!new_bw_state)
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (!intel_can_enable_sagv(new_bw_state))
> > > > > + if (!intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state))
> > > > > intel_disable_sagv(dev_priv);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -3800,7 +3800,7 @@ void intel_sagv_post_plane_update(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > > > > if (!new_bw_state)
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (intel_can_enable_sagv(new_bw_state))
> > > > > + if (intel_can_enable_sagv(dev_priv, new_bw_state))
> > > > > intel_enable_sagv(dev_priv);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -3853,16 +3853,19 @@ static bool skl_crtc_can_enable_sagv(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state)
> > > > > return true;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -bool intel_can_enable_sagv(const struct intel_bw_state *bw_state)
> > > > > +bool intel_can_enable_sagv(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > > > + const struct intel_bw_state *bw_state)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - if (bw_state->active_pipes && !is_power_of_2(bw_state->active_pipes))
> > > > > - return false;
> > > > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 11)
> > > > > + if (bw_state->active_pipes && !is_power_of_2(bw_state->active_pipes))
> > > >
> > > > If (a && b && c)
> > > > return false;
> > >
> > > Then the line would get too long, and it does exactly same thing.
> > > I really don't understand such comments.
> >
> > if (a && b &&
> > c)
> >
> > if (a &&
> > b && c)
> >
> > if (a &&
> > b &&
> > c)
> >
> > there are plenty of options. The point is nested ifs like this
> > only serve to indent code needlessly deep.
>
> and ifs like if (long condition1 && long condition2 && ...) make
> unnecessary "wide".
>
> I would understand of course if I would do something like
> 3-4 nested ifs sure, however that one seems to be completely similar.
>
> I don't even get why
>
> if (a &&
> b && c)
"if a and b and c then do stuff"
>
> reads better than
>
> if (a)
> if(b && c)
"if a then if b and c then do stuff"
The first one definitely sounds better to my ears. Not sure
the second one can even be called English.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
