On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:56:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Ville Syrjälä > <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hmm, after some thought I am in favour of the function as a readibility > >> improvement. However, I would prefer to have the iir check inlined > >> into the caller. > > > > I had it like that originally, but I moved it into the function when I > > realized all the callers have the exact same check, and it looked a bit > > out of place next to the other "sub" irq handlers which do the IIR > > checks themselves. > > > > But I'm not really attached to the idea, so I can change it back if > > that's the consensus. > > In our shared interrupt handling code we have both cases, where either > the helper function itself of the caller checks for the bits. Or > sometimes both even. I'm ok with whatever approach makes sense most. I'm working on the theory that we get thousands more interrupts for breadcrumbs and vblanks than we do hpd and so we should focus on keeping those pathways short. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
