On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 09:56:31PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 10:24:02PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Refactor the watermarks computation for one level to a separate > > function. This function will now set the ->enable flat to true, > > s/flat/flag/ > > Though I did think you meant a flatten value at one point. > > > even if the watermark level wasn't actually checked yet. In the > > future we will delay the checking so we must consider all unchecked > > watermarks as possibly valid. > > > > v2: Preserve comment about latency units > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I don't have the context here to confirm passing level to > ilk_compute_pri_wm is exactly what you want, and it seems that level is > implicitly greater than 0 in the original code. > > The transformation looks fine by itself. If you can calm my quirms over > the value of level (in the changelog is fine), Looks like Daniel already took this one. But yeah, I guess we should really pass 'level > 0' to make it clearer that it's a boolean. If you recall I had a patch in the original series to pass level all the way down, but I dropped it since it didn't actually do any good. As far as level=0, I didn't convert the hsw_compute_wm_pipe() to use the new function. I could do that as a followup patch. > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
