On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:35:15PM +0000, Jesse Barnes wrote: > I almost think we should just separate enable vs status entirely. As > long as the bits are named consistently it may be easier to follow (as > Ville found in your next patch with the subtle remapping of status > bits). Yeah, I think for cases where the hw engineers just made a mess of it it's better to be explicit. So what about keeping the current pipestat enable/disable functions as wrappers which assume a regular mapping betweeen status and mask bit, and then add a low-level function which takes both mask and status explicitly? That way we have less churn in the code, mostly pipestat enable/disable still looks sane but the irregular cases will really stick out. For a name I'd just go with __i915_enable_pipestat for lack of better ideas. Or maybe i915_enable_pipestat_irregular. Merged the patches thus far in this series to dinq. Cheers, 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
