On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:34:44PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:13:21PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 May 2014, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote: > >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > >> > +static void snb_wm_latency_quirk(struct drm_device *dev) > >> > +{ > >> > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > >> > + bool changed; > >> > + > >> > + /* > >> > + * The BIOS provided WM memory latency values are often > >> > + * inadequate for high resolution displays. Adjust them. > >> > + */ > >> > + changed = ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, > >> > dev_priv->wm.pri_latency, 12) | > >> > + ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, > >> > dev_priv->wm.spr_latency, 12) | > >> > + ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, > >> > dev_priv->wm.cur_latency, 12); > >> > >> Nitpick, s/|/||/g for bools. > > > > Consider side effects. > > Ugh I'm slow today. Some might claim business as usual. I'll hide > somewhere. > > Before I head under the rock, may I say bitops on bools are still ugly?
I tend to use them but Paulo was also confused by them somewhere else in the watermark code, so maybe I should stop using them? I can rewrite as: changed |= ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, dev_priv->wm.pri_latency, 12); changed |= ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, dev_priv->wm.spr_latency, 12); changed |= ilk_increase_wm_latency(dev_priv, dev_priv->wm.cur_latency, 12); or just 3x if (ilk_increase_wm_latency(...)) changed = true; if that helps. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx