From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915: Use the common register
 access functions for NOTRACE variants
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:51:08 +0100
Message-ID: <20130712205108.GF23323@cantiga.alporthouse.com>
References: <1373637756-11852-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<1373637756-11852-3-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<20130712203408.GH15384@bwidawsk.net>
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 fireflyinternet.com (s16502780.onlinehome-server.info
	[87.106.93.118])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC16E5E56
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130712203408.GH15384@bwidawsk.net>
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: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 01:34:09PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:02:33PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >  #define __i915_write(x, y) \
> > -void i915_write##x(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 reg, u##x val) { \
> > +void i915_write##x(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 reg, u##x val, bool trace) { \
> >  	u32 __fifo_ret = 0; \
> > -	trace_i915_reg_rw(true, reg, val, sizeof(val)); \
> > +	if (trace) trace_i915_reg_rw(true, reg, val, sizeof(val)); \
> >  	if (NEEDS_FORCE_WAKE((dev_priv), (reg))) { \
> >  		__fifo_ret = __gen6_gt_wait_for_fifo(dev_priv); \
> >  	} \
> 
> 
> if (unlikely(trace))? taking a hit on the tracing case seems like what
> you want... but I never know the status of such compiler flags.

It would be likely, I guess. But it is not obvious, so leave it out. Later
on we replace it with the preferred form for conditional tracepoints.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre