On Thu, 15 May 2014, Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:34:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:13:21PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> On Thu, 08 May 2014, [email protected] wrote: >> >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> >> >> > +static void snb_wm_latency_quirk(struct drm_device *dev) >> >> > +{ >> >> > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; >> >> > + bool changed; >> >> > + >> >> > + /* >> >> > + * The BIOS provided WM memory latency values are often >> >> > + * inadequate for high resolution displays. Adjust them. >> >> > + */ >> >> > + changed = ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, >> >> > dev_priv->wm.pri_latency, 12) | >> >> > + ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, >> >> > dev_priv->wm.spr_latency, 12) | >> >> > + ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, >> >> > dev_priv->wm.cur_latency, 12); >> >> >> >> Nitpick, s/|/||/g for bools. >> > >> > Consider side effects. >> >> Ugh I'm slow today. Some might claim business as usual. I'll hide >> somewhere. >> >> Before I head under the rock, may I say bitops on bools are still ugly? > > I tend to use them but Paulo was also confused by them somewhere else > in the watermark code, so maybe I should stop using them? > > I can rewrite as: > changed |= ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, dev_priv->wm.pri_latency, 12); > changed |= ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, dev_priv->wm.spr_latency, 12); > changed |= ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, dev_priv->wm.cur_latency, 12); > > or just 3x > if (ilk_increase_wm_latency(...)) > changed = true; > > if that helps.
Too late, patch pushed to -fixes, thanks for the patch and ridicule. ;) You can send cleanups later for -next if you like. BR, Jani. > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
