On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:49:31PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2016-07-27 at 12:14 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > static int i915_gem_object_list_info(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > index a24d31e3e014..b6b9a1f78238 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -2127,8 +2127,6 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops {
> > */
> > #define INTEL_MAX_SPRITE_BITS_PER_PIPE 5
> > #define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE 8
> > -#define INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS \
> > - (INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * I915_MAX_PIPES)
>
> Should we have a BUILD_BUG_ON to make sure we have a fit?
>
> > @@ -4549,16 +4549,20 @@ void i915_gem_track_fb(struct drm_i915_gem_object
> > *old,
> > struct drm_i915_gem_object *new,
> > unsigned frontbuffer_bits)
> > {
> > + /* Control of individual bits within the bitfield are guarded by
>
> 'bitfield' refers to specific C construct, so not the appropriate term
> here now that it is removed. In this commit it is readable, but for
> future I think just confusing.
When I wrote the comment it was still a bitfield! s/bitfield/mask/
BUILD_BUG_ON(INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_BITS_PER_PIPE * I915_MAX_PIPES >
sizeof(atomic_t) * BITS_PER_BYTE);
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
