Re: RFC: i915 arch changes to better support new chipsets

[Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1411 bytes --]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:59:15 -0300, Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni@dodonov.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 16:46, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>wrote:
> 
> > > I guess we could have the gen-number stuff be a union of
> > > IS_IVB()/IS_HSW()/IS_VLV(), and switch chipset probing to using each of
> > > those instead of just gen >= 4.
> > >
> > > Does this sound sane?
> >
> > Yeah that might be better anyway, at least for the kernel where the
> > IS_GEN stuff is getting more and more overloaded and I'd like to move
> > away from it in some places.
> >
> > So if you're ok with it, that sounds like a good approach.
> >
> 
> I think that we could move away from the IS_GEN checks in most places
> actually, and not just in some of them, by using the feature checks instead.
> 
> My latest branch reports gives `grep IS_GEN * | wc -l` = 112; and if we
> look for recent chipsets, we have `grep IS_GEN[67] *` = 47. And most of
> those checks have sub-checks as well for specific chip features or names.
> So if we drop the IS_GEN macros, and just use the specific feature or GPU
> name checks instead we should improve both the readability and decrease the
> code complexity I think.

A grep for IS_GEN will be significantly under-counting the number of
places that gen numbers are used, given that Mesa uses intel->gen, and
the 2d driver tends to use INTEL_INFO(intel)->gen.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx