On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:34:11AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2013/8/6 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:57:14PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> I did some brief tests and the "new_val = pmimr" condition usually > >> happens a few times after exiting games. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I'm not sure of the value of this patch by itself. It did make me wonder > > what you were micro-optimising, and then I saw patch 5 and it made more > > sense. > > Patches 4 and 5 are just micro optimizations and shouldn't be needed > for the PC8+, but I thought they would be useful. If you think they're > not worth it, we can discard them. I was trying to make the code > similar to the other IMR-changing functions. Combined together, I think the micro-optimisation makes sense and would say it was less of a micro-optimisation than a consistent design to use the bookkeeping instead of touching registers. Just on its own this patch caused me to do a double-take and question what your motivation was. > If we massage the code a little bit more we could make all the > IMR-changing functions share the same code Sure, that may be worthwhile. Probably borderline though, I envisage it will take more code to setup than it will save. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
