On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:50:42 +0100 Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:32:59 -0700, Jesse Barnes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Set the IRQ handling functions in driver load so they'll just be used > > directly, rather than branching over most of the code in the chipset > > functions. > > This is the direction we definitely need to go in. However, it is still a > tangled mess of which functions are called for which chipset. > > Is it any clearer to have a display vfunc table for each chipset? It would > still be a mess, but at least there will be an overview of how each chipset > works in a single spot. Invaluable for tracing through the function > pointers later. Yeah, initializing it all in one place would help, but the existing KMS/non-KMS split makes that hard for things like IRQ handling. > One thing we need to be careful is to move the common code into small > helper routines to avoid unnecessarily duplicating it. But not before we're sure about the duplication! Obviously things like the workqueue init at IRQ install time could be shared, but I don't like the idea of sharing hardware code unless it's absolutely identical, given our history. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
