On 18/03/16 00:36, Arun Siluvery wrote:
On 17/03/2016 16:00, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
There is a lot of ways to get to our dev_priv depending on which
object is at hand and often what was chosen by the developer.
We can make to_i915() accept different pointers by using compile
time magic. Like:
dev_priv = to_i915(request);
dev_priv = to_i915(engine);
dev_priv = to_i915(ctx);
dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
dev_priv = to_i915(guc);
dev_priv = to_i915(device);
If an unknown pointer is passed to the function it will cause
a compile time failure.
Main advantage is that with this in place we could add and
remove shourtcuts to dev_priv from supported structures easily
and without touching the code which uses it. If we wanted to
fiddle with the balance of structure sizes and number of pointer
dereferencing for example. And it makes the code a bit tidier
and uniform.
I get the readability aspect but is it advisable to hide too many things
under macros? In the new code is it expected to always use these macros?
if yes then in that case aren't we forcing certain usage? good or bad.
This has even wider impact than ring/engine renaming. If we must go this
route then we should at least do it in stages to minimize impact.
No worries it was just an RFC, like an OCD code tidy thing, and I
definitely agree it is not useful enough in the general scheme of things
to justify another big disruption.
However, going back to Jani's comment, I am not sure that multiple
T_to_i915(p) are better than a little bit of fake dynamic typing for
this special case.
Doing it in stages is a good idea, maybe roughly by a set of related
files at convenient times. TBD. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
