Re: [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:43:05PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Bradley -
>> 
>> Apologies for my procrastination with the review; I don't easily recall
>> as tedious a review as the command and register tables. And I sure have
>> reviewed a lot of miserable stuff in the past.
>> 
>> Most infuriatingly, I did not find a single real bug in the code!
>> 
>> I think we'll need to automate some things going forward, for example
>> listing the non-conforming length encoding with Damien's tools for cross
>> checking.
>> 
>> There are a few subtle points we need to discuss (separate mails
>> internally) but all in all this series is:
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>
> Ok, pulled this one in, thanks a lot for the patches&review. I think it's
> time we start to move on with the next bits, the batch copy stuff seams
> like a suitable piece. There's still issues with launching the entire
> thing in the end, but we can start with the copy infrastructure.
>
> Open issues I see still:
>
> - The littel issue we're discussing internally. Like I've said that one is
>   blocking us and needs to be resolved before we can switch to enforcing
>   mode.
>
> - Secure batch dispatch is still fubar.
>
> - CodingStyle says: Functions should be a) at most 3 indent levels b) at
>   most 3 ansi screens long (i.e. 75 lines). i915_parse_cmds violates both
>   metrics pretty deftly. I think a few refactoring patches to extract
>   helper functions and structure the flow a bit would be good.

Just extracting the handlers for (desc->flags & CMD_DESC_REGISTER) and
(desc->flags & CMD_DESC_BITMASK) would go a long way.

BR,
Jani.




>
> Cheers, Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center