On 07/12/2018 11:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/12/2018 01:17, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 4:37 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursu...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2018 06:11, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
Define IS_GEN() similarly to our IS_GEN_RANGE(). but use gen instead of
gen_mask to do the comparison. Now callers can pass then gen as a
parameter,
Since you are calling it out here, I assume there is some good reason to
replace gen_mask with gen?
Because in this version we don't have the commit removing gen from the
device info.
You had that? Totally don't remember.. what was the goal of that?
Checking gen instead of gen_mask is both simpler and generates smaller
code (although
the difference is negligible, ~100 bytes)
Ok fair, and easy enough to change back once per SKU work rekindles.
Back to the point, for this particular rename, I don't see the big
attractiveness on it's own so I defer to comments from others.
Sorry to clarify, attractiveness is to reduce the number of macro
definitions, but compared with balancing against the conflict against
other work in progress, that is where I am unsure of and defer to others.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
