On 08/09/2017 10:39, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017, Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Split INTEL_GEN_MASK out of IS_GEN macro, and make it usable
within static declarations (unlike combound statements).
Cc: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 22 ++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 63ca2ffcafef..c3f9d7d7b146 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -2873,23 +2873,21 @@ intel_info(const struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
#define INTEL_REVID(dev_priv) ((dev_priv)->drm.pdev->revision)
#define GEN_FOREVER (0)
+
+#define INTEL_GEN_MASK(s, e) ( \
+ BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(!__builtin_constant_p(s)) + \
+ BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(!__builtin_constant_p(e)) + \
+ GENMASK((e) != GEN_FOREVER ? (e) - 1 : BITS_PER_LONG - 1, \
+ (s) != GEN_FOREVER ? (s) - 1 : 0) \
Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
but I'd really like a patch on top to remove the -1 from here and
info->gen_mask.
What is the objection on -1? It is hidden in the macros so you can only
see it if looking at disassembly or even lower level.
We could even make it -2, but AFAIR Chris wanted to keep the option for
supporting gen1 open. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
