[Intel-gfx] [PATCH resend for CI 2/2] drm/i915: Use shorter route to dev_private where possible

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:47:31PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 17/03/16 13:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:04:10PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> >>
> >>Where we have a request we can use req->i915 directly instead
> >>of going through the engine and device. Coccinelle script:
> >>
> >>@@
> >>function f;
> >>identifier r;
> >>@@
> >>f(..., struct drm_i915_gem_request *r, ...)
> >>{
> >>...
> >>- engine->dev->dev_private
> >>+ r->i915
> >>...
> >>}
> >>@@
> >>struct drm_i915_gem_request *req;
> >>@@
> >>(
> >>   req->
> >>- engine->dev->dev_private
> >>+ i915
> >>)
> >
> >struct intel_engine_cs *e;
> >- e->dev->dev_private
> >+ e->i915
> >
> >Pretty please?
> 
> There is no e->i915 yet as far as I can see.

Oh, you have seen it. It might be over there instead :|

> >INTEL_INFO(engine->dev) (IS_GEN, HAS_ etc)
> >if r: INTEL_INFO(r->i915)
> >if e: INTEL_INFO(e->i915)
> >?
> 
> I have a patch to do:
> 
> - dev->dev_private
> + to_i915(dev)
> 
> But that is huge and to little gain.
> 
> Maybe we should have:
> 
> to_i915(req)
> to_i915(engine)
> to_i915(dev)
> 
> And a smart macro which does the right thing at compile time?

Tempting. Should look nice and consistent and such magic would improve
the look of many opening stanzas.

> That way churn would be one time only and the magic happens in the
> macro definition, as shortcuts are added or (re)moved.

Aye.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre