On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:09:57AM +0100, Christian Gmeiner wrote: > Hi Russell, > > 2016-01-19 10:18 GMT+01:00 Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > + /* > > + * For some cores, two varyings are consumed for position, so the > > + * maximum varying count needs to be reduced by one. > > + */ > > + if ((gpu->identity.model == chipModel_GC2000 && > > + gpu->identity.revision == 0x5108) || > > + (gpu->identity.model == chipModel_GC880 && > > + gpu->identity.revision == 0x5106)) > > + gpu->identity.varyings_count -= 1; > > Should we not include the whole list of GPU cores with that special handling? > See: https://github.com/Freescale/kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv/blob/master/kernel-module-imx-gpu-viv-src/hal/kernel/arch/gc_hal_kernel_hardware.c#L592 I was debating about that - but I think we need to come up with a better way to do this sort of thing. At the very least, I've been wondering whether a macro such as: #define etnaviv_model_rev(gpu, mod, rev) \ ((gpu)->identity.model == chipModel_##mod && \ (gpu)->identity.revision == rev)) would help make some of this code more readable. The other thing I've been wondering is whether a table looked up by GPU model ID and/or revision ID quirks would simplify this. However, the downside with the tabular approach is that it becomes harder to compare what we have against the galcore sources. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
