On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:14:51PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. I've added a small note to the commit message to (hopefully) capture this. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
