Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-03-09 01:08:08) > Originally we were inlining gen8_cs_irq_handler() and so expected the > compiler to constant-fold away the irq_shift (so we had hardcoded it as > opposed to use engine->irq_shift). However, we dropped the inline given > the proliferation of gen8_cs_irq_handler()s. If we pull the shifting > of the iir into the caller, we can shrink the code still further: > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/3 up/down: 0/-34 (-34) > Function old new delta > gen8_cs_irq_handler 123 118 -5 > gen8_gt_irq_handler 261 248 -13 > gen11_irq_handler 722 706 -16 > > v2: Drop gen11_cs_irq_handler now that it is a simple > stub around gen8_cs_irq_handler (Daniele) > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com>
Pushed, thanks for the review and prompting. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
