On 27/11/17 04:28 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.11.2017 um 21:56 schrieb Alex Deucher:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Christian König
<christian.koe...@amd.com> wrote:
Am 27.11.2017 um 21:01 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
On 2017-11-27 02:37 PM, Koenig, Christian wrote:
And that is a clear NAK to this approach.
Hi Christian,
Do you have other objections than the style issues? If so, please
explain.
No, the technical aspect actually looks rather reasonable.
Please clarify, why this file needs to be treated differently from
other
files under include/asic_reg? All those files are auto-generated by HW
teams. Fixing the coding style adds no value and makes future updates
more complicated.
We already got complains about that and most likely will need to fix the
rest as well.
I'd like to stay as close as possible to the headers formats we are
using internally across teams for consistency.
To be honest I strongly disagree on that. The bad quality of the
internal AMD headers is the reason we had to basically have the VMHUB
code for Vega10 twice for example.
At the very least the globals we use per ip block should be version
specific. That way if you cscope/ctags around you can find the actual
references and not collisions.
Tom
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
