On 10 April 2018 at 09:30, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 2018-04-04 04:29 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  todo | 9 +++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 todo
>>
>> diff --git a/todo b/todo
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..10c1ad5
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/todo
>> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
>> + - on amdgpu_probe failure, the pScrn entry is leaked - missing 
>> api/examples?
>
> Might be similar to patch 11; does valgrind actually report a leak if
> you force this?
>
>
>> + - introduce xf86ConfigEntity and use it
>> + - remove embedded AMDGPUInfoRec::pEnt
>> + - consistently use gAMDGPUEntityIndex or getAMDGPUEntityIndex
>> + - consistently use of pEnt/entity_num -> pScrn->list[], AMDPRIV
>> + - kill off DRI_1_ DRICreatePCIBusID - demote again to DRI1 only in X 
>> codebase
>> + - compose bus string early & strcmp instead of device_match?
>> + - remove embedded AMDGPUInfoRec::PciInfo - reuse EntityInfoRec::chipset, 
>> GDevRec::chiIDi, amdgpu_gpu_info::asic_id or ...
>> + - use odev to fetch render_node?
>
> I'm afraid I don't really see these as important enough to be tracked
> like this.
>
Agreed - no reason to keep these in-tree.

Idea was to gather feedback on the topics. One example:
Do we need the getAMDGPUEntityIndex helper, considering ~half of the
existing codebase uses it. Yet other half references
gAMDGPUEntityIndex directly.

Most of the above, seem to be a copy/paste from the radeon driver,
which in turn is a copy from (?) and the original commit lacks any
information :-\

-Emil
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

Reply via email to