Re: [PATCH 08/15] drm/i915: Move execlists defines from .c to .h

From: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Michael H. Nguyen" <michael.h.nguyen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] drm/i915: Move execlists defines from .c to .h
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:31:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5581226F.4010107@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150616093706.GN28462@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On 16/06/15 10:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 07:36:26PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
>> From: "Michael H. Nguyen" <michael.h.nguyen@intel.com>
>>
>> Move defines from intel_lrc.c to i915_reg.h so they are accessible
>> to the GuC submission code; and expose a previously static function
>> in the execlist code which will also be required for GuC submission.
> 
> What would have been better would have to been to split the lrc code
> from the execlists code so that the sharing is more obvious and the
> overloading separate from the common code.
> -Chris

What would have been better is not to have put these fairly generic
details about the hardware into a C file in the first place. And not to
have split execlist and ringbuffer modes into two entirely different
paths. And various other historical decisions. But we can only fix the
code as it stands, not as it ought to have been.

Anyway, this is just a bulk cut-n-paste, so I'm not inclined to do any
restructuring on it during this process. But someone working on
execlists could certainly tidy it up later, perhaps as part of a general
drive towards deduplicating the code paths and partitioning (context vs
ringbuffer vs engine) functionality in a more coherent way.

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