From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] drm/i915: inline enable/disable_irq
 into ring->get/put_irq
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:03:30 -0700
Message-ID: <20120412180330.60e1f99b@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1334175179-1514-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<1334175179-1514-15-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4883C9E777
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1334175179-1514-15-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=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: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:12:59 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> Now that these are properly refactored this additional indirection
> doesn't really buy us anything but confusion. Hence inline them.
> 
> This duplicates the ironlake gt enable/disable code snippet, but we've
> already separate ilk from gen6+ gt irq in i915_irq.c, so I think this
> makes more sense.
> 
> Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

Bikeshed:
While doing all this, I think put/get irq is really terribly named. I
was a much bigger fan of the enable disable.

Also, you could use a bit of flow control to write to the correct IMR
register and not duplicate functions at all. You already do the
POSTING_READ so performance shouldn't matter.

Something like...

uint32_t imr = GEN(dev) >= 5 ? GTIMR: IMR;