From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] glamor: check a flag to indicate whether enable GLAMOR. Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:47:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1321272544-29722-1-git-send-email-zhigang.gong@linux.intel.com> <1321272544-29722-3-git-send-email-zhigang.gong@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981539E941 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:47:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1321272544-29722-3-git-send-email-zhigang.gong@linux.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Zhigang Gong , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:09:03 +0800, Zhigang Gong wrote: > According to Chris's comments, this commit try to > elminate #ifdef from the body of the code if possible. > We check the flags to determine whether enable GLAMOR > at runtime, rather than check the MACRO during the compile > time. I was thinking more along the lines of pushing the actual check out of I830CloseScreen (and friends) and into the intel_glamor routines. That way the interface to glamor is fairly self-contained and the existing code can be gradually whittled away until it is simply a call into intel_glamor, at which point we can remove the existing layer. Inside uxa, the inline checks are indeed better as this layer should be tightly integrated with the available acceleration methods. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre