From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: split irq handling into
	per-chipset functions
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 23:13:44 +0100
Message-ID: <1bdc18$k56odl@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com>
References: <1302211980-10089-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<1302211980-10089-3-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
	<0d30dc$lom25v@orsmga001.jf.intel.com>
	<20110407150414.4dc8a951@jbarnes-desktop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23199E7AF
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu,  7 Apr 2011 15:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110407150414.4dc8a951@jbarnes-desktop>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=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: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:04:14 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:50:42 +0100
> Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > One thing we need to be careful is to move the common code into small
> > helper routines to avoid unnecessarily duplicating it.
> 
> But not before we're sure about the duplication!  Obviously things like
> the workqueue init at IRQ install time could be shared,

Actually that workqueue init is in the wrong place entirely, but that
was the sort of generic code I was looking at. ;-)

> but I don't
> like the idea of sharing hardware code unless it's absolutely
> identical, given our history.

Agreed, I think the model you've proposed of doing bring-up on a separate
copy of the code and then gradually merge back the duplicate portions
carries the least risk. Also looking at our history, we carry a lot of
bugs that we only notice when looking at the next chipset iteration...
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre