[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/11] drm/i915: Reorganize overlay filter coeffs into a nicer form

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:26:41PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 06:17:28PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:31AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 07:28:10PM +0200, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Use two-dimensional arrays and named initializers to make the
> > > > overlay filter coefficient tables easier to parse for humans.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Spot checking didn't reveal any typos. I presume that since they are u16
> > > array of arrays, gcc is not adding any padding between rows?
> > 
> > Didn't see any. I suppose we could
> > 
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(y_static_hcoeffs) != N_PHASES * N_HORIZ_Y_TAPS * 2);
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(uv_static_hcoeffs) != N_PHASES * N_HORIZ_UV_TAPS * 2);
> > 
> > for extra paranoia?
> 
> I don't think it matters. Maybe a __packed and just leave it to gcc's
> whims?

Apparently __packed isn't a thing for arrays. So I went ahead and pushed
the patch as is.

I pushed all the other ones that had been reviewed as well. That leaves
us with the mm.interruptible thing which probably needs actual thought,
and the "nuke 830 MI_OVERLAY_OFF w/a" patch.

I tries to slap on some cc:stables to the oops fixes since the offenders
have by now reached v4.9.

Thanks for the reviews.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC