On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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. That could lead to someone accidentally using the regular function when they should be using the irregular one and then we have some weird bug on our hands. I rather like keeping the mess in one central place. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
