All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Arun Siluvery <arun.siluvery@linux.intel.com>,
	Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm/i915: Smarten up and use to_i915() everywhere
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:33:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56EBCB6F.1020602@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56EB4DA7.8080902@linux.intel.com>


On 18/03/16 00:36, Arun Siluvery wrote:
> On 17/03/2016 16:00, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> 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@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2016-03-18  9:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-17 16:00 [RFC] drm/i915: Smarten up and use to_i915() everywhere Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-03-17 18:46 ` Jani Nikula
2016-03-17 19:17   ` Chris Wilson
2016-03-17 19:14 ` Chris Wilson
2016-03-18  0:36 ` Arun Siluvery
2016-03-18  9:33   ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2016-03-18 15:28     ` Jani Nikula
2016-03-18  8:31 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56EBCB6F.1020602@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=arun.siluvery@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.