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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox