On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:12:59 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@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.vet...@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. 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; _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
