On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:36:50 -0700, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:59:37 +0100, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I'd prefer to keep the mucking around with intel_watermak_params in the > > one spot. How about: > > My concern is that g4x_compute_wm0 is now different from > ironlake_compute_wm0, which seems like a potential trap for the > unwary.
A trap that I wrote for myself and fell into. The goal was to reduce the number of copies of the watermark computation by gradual refactoring. Looks like we can now indeed merge g4x_compute_wm0 and ironlake_compute_wm0 and ignore the off-values for gen5+. So fix the use of uninitialised values for -fixes and remove the redundant copy in -next? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
