From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: check gtfifodbg after possibly failed writes Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:28:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1328628110-5954-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <1328628110-5954-4-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <20120208101558.GB5030@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97469F639 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:28:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120208101558.GB5030@phenom.ffwll.local> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 , Ben Widawsky Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:15:58 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Bit a bikeshed comment, but I prefer explicit control flow instead of > playing tricks with the short-circuiting behaviour of &&. Mind if you can > change that, too? Whilst we're on the subject of bikesheds, having an explicit tracepoint for forcewake get/put would have answered a query I just had. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre