[PATCH] drm/xe: Sort again the info flags

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 10:51:58AM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
>On 18/11/2024 22:33, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>Those flags are supposed to be kept sorted alphabetically. Unfortunately
>>it's a constant battle as new flags are added to the end or at random
>>places. Sort it again.
>>
>>v2: Include the other non-has_* 1-bit flags in the sort
>>
>>Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com> # v1
>>Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>>---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++------------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
>>index 8592f1b02db11..8b2b12daa49dd 100644
>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
>>@@ -294,14 +294,21 @@ struct xe_device {
>>  		/** @info.va_bits: Maximum bits of a virtual address */
>>  		u8 va_bits;
>
>Should we not document somewhere here that the below should be kept sorted?

yes, probably. Also... we have the CI Hooks we should make better use of
too. First check if the patch series changed drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
at all and if it did, check that these flags are sorted. We should be
able to add some quick and dirty checks so we don't have to keep
changing it. Just need to make sure the output on what was
the error is helpful, otherwise people will just ignore it.

Ryszard / Jani  any thought on that idea?

Lucas De Marchi