[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 14/14] drm/i915: inline enable/disable_irq into ring->get/put_irq

Daniel Vetter daniel at ffwll.ch
Fri Apr 13 11:13:53 CEST 2012

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:03:30PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:12:59 +0200
> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > Now that these are properly refactored this additional indirection
> > doesn't really buy us anything but confusion. Hence inline them.
> > 
> > This duplicates the ironlake gt enable/disable code snippet, but we've
> > already separate ilk from gen6+ gt irq in i915_irq.c, so I think this
> > makes more sense.
> > 
> > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> Bikeshed:
> While doing all this, I think put/get irq is really terribly named. I
> was a much bigger fan of the enable disable.

Actually that can be combined with Chris' bikeshed to move the
ring->put|get_irg to dev_priv->core.ring_enable/disable_irq. But I've
figured that the same patch series should also move the forcewake function
pointers from dev_priv->display to dev_priv->core, so this is imo a
different patch series.

> Also, you could use a bit of flow control to write to the correct IMR
> register and not duplicate functions at all. You already do the
> POSTING_READ so performance shouldn't matter.
> Something like...
> uint32_t imr = GEN(dev) >= 5 ? GTIMR: IMR;

I've  figured I want to ditch all IS_GEN checks from these functions. But
for this case it makes some sense. Imo could be done with the follow-up
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel at ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48

More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list