From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915: pass status instead of enable
 flags to i915_enable_pipestat
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:12:39 +0100
Message-ID: <20140205161239.GI17001@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1391542551-20239-1-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com>
	<1391542551-20239-6-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com>
	<20140205153515.47c112f5@jbarnes-t420>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-ea0-f174.google.com (mail-ea0-f174.google.com
	[209.85.215.174])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670A041BE
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed,  5 Feb 2014 08:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f174.google.com with SMTP id b10so339204eae.33
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140205153515.47c112f5@jbarnes-t420>
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@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:35:15PM +0000, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> I almost think we should just separate enable vs status entirely.  As
> long as the bits are named consistently it may be easier to follow (as
> Ville found in your next patch with the subtle remapping of status
> bits).

Yeah, I think for cases where the hw engineers just made a mess of it it's
better to be explicit. So what about keeping the current pipestat
enable/disable functions as wrappers which assume a regular mapping
betweeen status and mask bit, and then add a low-level function which
takes both mask and status explicitly?

That way we have less churn in the code, mostly pipestat enable/disable
still looks sane but the irregular cases will really stick out. For a name
I'd just go with __i915_enable_pipestat for lack of better ideas. Or maybe
i915_enable_pipestat_irregular.

Merged the patches thus far in this series to dinq.

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch