Err...I just send another two patches before read this letter. : ) Ironlake and g4x share the same bsd_ring, so they share the same bsd_ring_put/get_irq functions of the ring. Given this, we can't just change the function name to g4x_ring_put/get_irq. If we do so, we need ironlake_ring_put/get_irq, too. So I just use a if-else in bsd_ring_*_irq to find out the version of the chipset and do different work. Is that OK?
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Wilson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:39 PM To: Feng, Boqun; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] fix interrupt request miss problem in bsd ring for g4x On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:08:57 +0800, "Feng, Boqun" <[email protected]> wrote: > I am very sorry for my careless about whitespace. > > But my patch will not affect gen6+ paths, for gen6+, it use gen6_bsd_ring > , bsd_ring is only used by g4x and ironlake. Reviewer error, sorry. Saw the gen6_* in the diff header as the function affected and believed it. > Besides, since bsd_ring_get_irq/bsd_ring_put_irq/ring_get_irq/ring_put_irq > are only used by bsd_ring, can we use a patch to merge them into two > function? Yes, once upon a time they differed, now they are the same so please do merge them and give them a more useful name: g4x_ring_* so that there is a constant reminder that g4x also has a BSD ring and that the functions are not expected to be used with earlier chipsets. Daniel has done similar things for gen6 once we decided to drop the pre-production workarounds. Obviously that is a separate patch to the bug fix. Thanks, -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
