From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: Supporting fused display configurations v4 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:07:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20140107080710.GF4770@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1389035849-20563-1-git-send-email-damien.lespiau@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f180.google.com (mail-ea0-f180.google.com [209.85.215.180]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8D9108A12 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 00:05:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f15so25714eak.25 for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:05:56 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Paulo Zanoni Cc: Intel Graphics Development List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:05:56PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > Hi > > 2014/1/6 Damien Lespiau : > > Follow up of the v3: > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2013-December/037333.html > > > > The main change is the removal of INTEL_INFO() from the driver (patches 1 to > > 5), a clean-up suggested by Chris: the usage of that macro hides that we go > > from dev to dev_priv while we could use the dev_priv pointer that is usually > > available. > > > > Patch 6 is also new, a minor clean-up while at it. > > For patches 1 to 6: > Reviewed-by: Paulo Zanoni > > > Some comments/bikesheds (I'm not requiring these changes, just > throwing some ideas): > > - You removed INTEL_INFO, but all those IS_SOMETHING and HAS_SOMETHING > macros still accept dev as argument instead of dev_priv. Do we have > plans to change this too? I can remember many places where I had to > add a "dev" variable just because of these macros. Perhaps maybe the > new goal is a series removing the to_i915 macro? I could see a lot of > code getting almost entirely rid of "dev" with these changes. Once we have proper subclassing casting between drm_device and i915_device is very cheap, so I'm ok with sprinkling to_i915 all over those macros. If we end up with tons of IS_SOMETHING(&dev_priv->base) kind of code in a glorious future we can then switch things around. > - It would be nice if we could come up with a clever strategy to find > out if a still-not-initialized field of intel_device_info is being > used. No clever ideas here, besides the obvious implementations that > don't look good. Same here - would be neat but no idea. > - Quick! Merge patch 3 before it conflicts and someone needs to review > that giant thing again! As long as topic/ppgtt is still hanging out there and not yet merged into dinq that can't happen due to conflict galore. And since there are still some regressions pending that'll take a while. Please don't blame me for this mess, I never really liked this approach of merging ppgtt ... -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch