+ Ville to comment if the removed code loses some meaningful comments or not. I already went through the code doing consolidations, about a year ago, so I may be blind to it.
On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 21:19 +0000, Matthew Auld wrote: > We duplicate the stolen discovery code in early-quirks and in i915, > however if we just export the region as a resource from early-quirks we > can nuke the duplication. > > Suggested-by: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]> > Suggested-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <[email protected]> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]> > Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] <SNIP> > @@ -548,6 +551,9 @@ intel_graphics_stolen(int num, int slot, int func, > printk(KERN_INFO "Reserving Intel graphics memory at %pa-%pa\n", > &base, &end); > > + intel_graphics_stolen_res.start = base; > + intel_graphics_stolen_res.end = end; You can take advantage of the newly establisted resource by using %pR in the printk. I sent a patch to convert the function signatures to resource_size_t for a less painful future. Maybe squash just the early quirks/header change portion of this patch to that patch, then we can iterate on the i915 changes on a reminder of the series on top of that. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
