On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 02:49:36PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:49:20PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:37:39PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:30:02PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:42:15PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > > > > In the future, we need to be able to specify per-pipe number of > > > > > planes/sprites. Let's start today! > > > > > > > > But today, what's wrong with: > > > > for_each_pipe(pipe) info->num_sprites[pipe] = IS_VLV(dev) ? 2 : 1; > > > > > > I'd rather have info->num_sprites[pipe] == 0 when the device doesn't > > > support that pipe, even if that value shouldn't be used anywhere. > > > > for (; pipe < I915_NUM_PIPES; pipe++) info->num_sprites[pipe] = 0; > > -Chris > > Would: > > if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev)) > for_each_pipe(pipe) > info->num_sprites[pipe] = 2; > else > for_each_pipe(pipe) > info->num_sprites[pipe] = 1; > > be acceptable to your keen eye? Only because I strongly suspect the next branch to not be as clean. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
