From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915: pass status instead of enable
 flags to i915_enable_pipestat
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 18:53:28 +0200
Message-ID: <20140205165328.GO3891@intel.com>
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>
	<20140205161239.GI17001@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7869C4144
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed,  5 Feb 2014 08:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140205161239.GI17001@phenom.ffwll.local>
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: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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.

That could lead to someone accidentally using the regular function when
they should be using the irregular one and then we have some weird bug
on our hands. I rather like keeping the mess in one central place.

-- =

Ville Syrj=E4l=E4
Intel OTC