On 04/01/2019 12:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-04 11:40:53)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
No functional or code size change - just notice we can compact the source
by re-using a single helper for adding workarounds.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_workarounds.c | 32 +++++-------------------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_workarounds.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_workarounds.c
index ffc96c8b849b..a8161324108d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_workarounds.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_workarounds.c
@@ -142,7 +142,8 @@ static void _wa_add(struct i915_wa_list *wal, const struct
i915_wa *wa)
}
static void
-__wa_add(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg, u32 mask, u32 val)
+wa_write_masked_or(struct i915_wa_list *wal, i915_reg_t reg, u32 mask,
+ u32 val)
This looked odd, since I was thinking that __wa_add() remained the
better name for adding the actual i915_wa_list, but __wa_add() is just
perplexingly the wrapper for _wa_add()
For both,
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
I am not too proud with my used of single and double underscores here.
:I And I was also thinking about why not just keep __wa_add as the
common adder. Even had a version with _wa_add renamed to __wa_add, and
then _wa_add etc. Maybe I need to have another go at it.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
