From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Widawsky Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/66] drm/i915: Getter/setter for object attributes Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:59:51 -0700 Message-ID: <20130701225951.GL4242@bwidawsk.net> References: <1372375867-1003-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <1372375867-1003-31-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <20130630130005.GK18285@phenom.ffwll.local> <20130701183218.GC4242@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shiva.localdomain (unknown [209.20.75.48]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BE6E6123 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Intel GFX List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:08:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> All of this is addressed in future patches. As we've discussed, I think > >> I'll have to respin it anyway, so I'll name it as such upfront. To me it > >> felt a little weird to start calling things "ggtt" before I made the > >> separation. > > > > I think now that we know what the end result should (more or less at > > least) look like we can aim to make it right the first time we touch a > > piece of code. That will reduce the churn in the patch series and so > > make the beast easier to review. > > > > Imo foreshadowing (to keep consistent with the "a patch series should > > tell a story" analogy) is perfectly fine, and in many cases helps in > > understanding the big picture of a large pile of patches. > > I've forgotten to add one thing: If you switch these again later on > (layz me didn't check for that) it's imo best to stick with those > names (presuming they fit, since the gtt_size vs. obj->size > disdinction is a rather important one). Again I think now that we know > where to go to it's best to get there with as few intermediate steps > as possible. > -Daniel > I don't recall object size being very important actually, so I don't think the distinction is too important, but I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. With the sg page stuff that Imre did, I think most size calculations unrelated to gtt size are there anyway, and most of our mm (not page allocation) code should only ever care about the gtt. > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center