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
